參考資料
一、中文部份
(一) 書名
1、陳文吟,我國專利制度之研究,五南圖書出版公司,民國九十五年十月四版三刷。
2、陳文吟,專利法專論,五南圖書出版公司,民國八十六年十月二版。
3、陳智超,專利法理論與實務,五南圖書出版公司,民國九十三年四月二版一刷。
4、陳逸南,知識產權理論與實踐,電子工業出版社,民國九十三年十月。
5、李文賢,專利法要論,翰蘆圖書出版有限公司,民國九十四年十月初版。
6、黃文儀,專利實務第二冊,三民書局,民國九十三年第四版。
7、黃文儀,申請專利範圍的解釋與專利侵害判斷,三民書局,民國八十三年初版。
8、鄭中人,專利法逐條釋論,五南圖書出版公司,民國九十一年九月初版一刷。
9、楊崇森,專利法理論與應用,三民書局,民國九十六年一月二版一刷。
10、劉尚志、陳佳麟,電子商務與電腦軟體之專利保護,翰蘆圖書出版有限公司,民國九十年九月二版。
11、謝銘洋,智慧財產權之基礎理論,翰蘆圖書出版有限公司,民國九十三年十月初版。
12、謝銘洋,智慧財產權之制度與實務,翰蘆圖書出版有限公司,民國九十三年十月二版。
13、蔡明誠,專利侵權要件及損害賠償計算,經濟部智慧財產局,民國九十六年二月初版一刷。
14、蔡明誠,發明專利法研究,國立臺灣大學法學叢書,民國八十七年八月二版一刷。
15、蔡明誠,發明專利法研究,自版,民國八十九年三月第三版。
16、羅炳榮,工業財產權叢論-專利侵害與迴避設計篇,翰蘆圖書出版有限公司,民國九十三年初版 。
17、經濟部智慧財產局,專利侵害鑑定要點,民國九十三年十一月。
18、智慧財産局法務室,專利法逐條釋義,民國九十二年三月。
19、經濟部智慧財產局,專利審查基準,民國九十三年版。
20、王澤鑑,侵權行為法(ㄧ)基本理論一般侵權行為,三民書局,民國九十五年八月初版十一刷。
21、王澤鑑,民法總則,三民書局,九十一年七月八刷。
22、施啟揚,民法總則,自行出版,民國九十六年六月七版一刷。
(二) 期刊
1、王咫憛B鄭遠翔,「專利侵害鑑定要點」(草案)程序規範之法理分析,法令月刊第56卷第3期,第74頁,民國九十四年三月。
2、陳文吟,由美國專利實務探討專利侵害之實驗免責,台北大學法學論叢第64季刊,第26頁,民國九十六年十二月。
3、陳智超,專利補助侵權於我國法制上之依據,智慧財產權第12期,第70頁,民國八十八年 十二月。4、陳佳麟,申請專利範圍之手段弁鄍弇y解釋及其侵害判斷,科技法學評論第2卷第1期第147~203頁,民國九十四年四月。
5、陳森豐,陳逸瑄,從Philips v. AWH一案論申請專利範圍解釋之方法論,科技法律透析第18卷第8期,第47~62頁,民國九十五年八月。6、陳蕙君,論專利權範圍、專利權效力範圍與專利權保護範圍之區辨,智慧財產權,第8頁,民國九十一年二月。7、吳文賓,淺論專利審查基準的法律性質及司法審查,智慧財產權月刊第49期,第55~56頁,民國九十二年一月。8、劉國讚,有關手段弁鄍弇y申請專利範圍解讀之美國法院判決介紹,智慧財產權月刊,第109期,第5頁,民國九十七年一月。9、劉孔中、倪萬鑾,均等論在我國實務應用上所生問題之探討,智慧財產權月刊第40期,第55~66頁,民國九十一年四月。10、錢逸霖,論美國專利法下之均等論與禁反言-深入剖析美國Festo案,智慧財產權月刊第70期,第55~72頁,民國九十三年十月。11、蔡明誠,發明專利侵權時保護範圍認定與申請專利範圍解釋原則,植根雜誌第10卷第5期,第163頁,ㄧ九九四年五月。12、蔡明誠,論智慧財產權之用盡原則-試從德國法觀察、兼論歐洲法之相關規範,政大法學評論41期,第41頁,民國七十九年六月。(三) 論文
1、黃湘閔,申請專利範圍解釋之研究,私立世新大學法律研究所碩士論文,民國九十四年。2、黃鐘模,侵害專利權之民事責任,私立東吳大學法律研究所,碩士論文,民國八十八年。3、麥怡平,專利侵害判斷與民事審判實務之研究,私立世新大學法律研究所碩士論文,民國九十四年。(四) 網路資料
1、從美國種子專利侵權判決看其專利權利耗盡原則的適用,請參見http://pcm.tipo.gov.tw/pcm/pro_show.asp?sn=241(上網日期:民國九十六年十月一日)。
2、丁俊萍,新專利法施行細則修正專利範圍撰寫之方式,請參見 http://www.longriver.com.tw/home.php?id=52&xd=21&yd=2&pg=2(上網日期:民國九十六年十一月十日)。
3、李鎂,解讀專利法第五十七條,請參見http://pcm.tipo.gov.tw/pcm/01_classroom/other.asp(上網日期:民國九十六年二月八日)。
二、外文部份
(一) Books
1、CHISUM, DONALD S., CHISUM ON PATENTS, vol. 3, 5 & 5A, Matthew Bender & Co., Inc. (2003).
2、CHISUM, DONALD S., CRAIG ALLEN NARD, HERBERT F. SCHWARTZ, PAULINE NEWMAN & F. SCOTT KIEFF, PRINCIPLES OF PATENT LAW, Foundation Press (2004).
3、CANELIAS, PETER S., PATENT PRACTICE HANDBOOK, Aspen Law & Business (2001).
4、FABER, ROBERT C., LANDIS ON MECHANICS OF PATENT CLAIM DRAFTING, Baker & Taylor Books (2002).
5、GRUBB, PHILIP W., PATENTS FOR CHEMICALS, PHARMACEUTICALS AND BIOTECHNOLOGY, Oxford University Press, USA (1999).
6、HOLZMANN, RICHARD T., INFRINGEMENT OF THE UNITED STATES PATENT RIGHT, Quorum Books (1995).
7、KAHRL, ROBERT C., PATENT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION, Aspen Law & Business (2002).
8、 ROSENBERG, PETER D., PATENT LAW FUNDAMENTALS, vol. 2 & 3, West Group (2002).
9、Schwartz, Herbert F., Patent Law and Practice, Bureau of National Affairs ( 2001).
(二) Periodicals
1、Adams, Charles W., A Brief History of Indirect Liability for Patent Infringement, 22 SANTA CLARA COMPUTER & HIGH TECH. L.J. 369 (2006).
2、American Intellectual Property Law Association (AIPLA), The Interpretation of Patent Claims, 32 AIPLA Q. J. 1-80 (2004).
3、Azure, Anthony H., Festo's effect on after-arising technology and the doctrine of equivalents, 76 WASH. L. REV. 1153 (2001).
4、Biela, Joseph A., Claim Interpretation: A Claim Indefiniteness Analysis Proposal, 47 IDEA 561 (2007).
5、Cohen, Julie E. and Lemley, Mark A., Patent Scope and Innovation in the Software Industry, 89 CAL. L. REV. 1 (2001).
6、Dinges, Jason R., Extraterritorial Patent Infringement Liability After: NTP, Inc. v. Research In Motion, Ltdm., 32 IOWA J. CORP. L. 217 (2006).
7、Holbrook, Timothy R., The Intent Element of Induced Infrigement, 22 SANTA CLARA COMPUTER & HIGH TECH. L.J. 399 (2006).
8、Kim, C. Leon, Transition from Central to Peripheral Definition Patent Claim Interpretation System in Korea, 77 J. PAT. & TRADEMARK OFF. SOC'Y 401 (1995).
9、Kandara, John N., Application of the Doctrine of Equivalents to Means Plus Function Claims : WMS Gaming Inc v. International Game Technology, 50 DUKE L. J. 887 (2000).
10、Lemley, Mark A., Inducing Patent Infringement, 39 U.C. DAVIS L. REV. 225 (2005).
11、Oswald, Lynda J., the Intent Element of "Inducement to Infringe" Under Patent Law, 13 MICH. TELECOMM. TECH. L. REV. 225 (2006).
12、Rowe, Elizabeth A., The Experimental Use Exception to Patent Infringement: Do Universities Deserve Special Treatment ? 59 ME. L. REV. 283 (2007).
13、Turk, Scott A., The Proper Method for Using Dictionaries to Construe Patent Claims, 6 CHI.-KENT J. INTELL. PROP. 43 (2006).
14、Wasserman, Melissa Feeney, Divided Infringement : Expanding the Extraterritorlal Scope of Patent Law, 82 N.Y.U.L. REV. 281 (2007).
15、Wharton, Jacob S., What’s left of the doctrine of equivalents? 20 ST. LOUIS U. PUB. L. REV. 281 (2001).
16、Wallace, Gregory J., Toward certainty and uniformity in patent infringement cases after Festo and markman: A proposal for a specialized patent trial court with a rule of greater deference., 77 S. CAL L. REV. 1383 (2004).
(三) Cases
1、Wallace v. Holmes, 29 F. Cas 74 (C.C.D. 1871).
2、Motion Picture Patents Co. v. Universal Film Mfg. Co., 243 U.S. 502 (1917).
3、Imazio Nursery, Inc. v. Dania Greenhouses, 69 F.3d 1560 (Fed. Cir. 1996).
4、Radio Corp. v. Andrea 79 F. 2d 626 (1935).
5、Deepsouth Packing Co. v. Laitram Corp. 406 U. S. 518, 173 USPQ 769 (1972).
6、Huck Mfg. Co. v. Textron, Inc. 187 U.S.P.Q. 388 (E.D. Mich. 1975).
7、Black & Decker (U.S.), Inc. v. Home Prod. Marketing, Inc. 929 F. Supp. 1114 (N.D. Ill. 1996).
8、Beider v. Photostat Corp. 10 F Supp. 628, 26 USPQ 237 (W.D.N.Y.1935).
9、 Fehr v. Activated Sludge Sludge, 84 F.2d 948 (1936).
10、Cincinnati Ice-Machine Co. v. Foss-Schneider Brewing Co. 31 F. 469 (C.S.D. Ohio 1887).
11、Zinn v. Weiss,7 F. 914 (C.C.E.D.N.Y. 1881)
12、Kaz Mfg. Co. v. Cheesebrough-Pounds, Inc. 317 F.2d 679 (1963).
13、Byam v. Bullard 4 F. Cas. 934 (No. 2262) (C.C.D. Mass. 1852).
14、Ecodyne Corp. v. Croll-Reynolds Engineering Co. 491 F. Supp. 194 (1979).
15、Hughes Aircraft v. United States, 29 Fed. Cl. 197(1993).
16、Ocean Science & Engineering, Inc. v. United States, 194 USPQ 380 (Ct. Cls. 1977).
17、Marconi Wireless Telegraph Co. v. United States, 53 USPQ 246 (Ct. Cls. 1942).
18、Roche Products, Inc. v. Bolar Pharmaceutical Co., 733 F .2d 858 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
19、Fuji Photo Film Co., Ltd. v. Jazz Photo Corp. 394 F.3d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
20、Adams v. Burke 84 U.S. 453, 21 L. Ed. 700 (1873).
21、E.g. Power Lift, Inc. v. Weatherford Nipple-Up Systems, Inc., 871 F.2d 1082 (Fed. Cir. 1989).
22、Whittemore v. Cutter, 29 F. Cas. 1120 (C.C.D. Mass. 1813).
23、Poppenhusen v. Falke, 19 F. Cas. 1048 (C.C.S.D. N.Y. 1861).
24、Aro Mfg. Co. v. Convertible Top Replacement Co. 365 U.S. 336 (1961).
25、Graham Paper Co. v. International Paper Co., 46 F. 2d 881 (1931).
26、Fromberg, Inc. v. Thornhill, 315 F. 2d 407 (1963).
27、Motion Picture Patents Co. v. Universal Film Mfg. Co. 243 U.S., 502 (1917).
28、Morton Salt Co. v. Suppiger Co.314 U.S., 488 (1942).
29、Mercoid Corp. v. Mid-Continent Inc.320 U.S., 661 (1944).
30、In re Donaldson Company, Inc., 16 F. 3d 1189 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
31、In re Harnisch., 631 F. 2d 716 (C.C.P.A. 1980).
32、Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 52 F. 3d 967 (Fed. Cir. 1995).
33、Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 517 U.S. 370 (1996).
34、Housey Pharms v. Astrazeneca UK Ltd., 366 F. 3d 1348, 1349 (Fed Cir. 2004)
35、Vitronics v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F. 3d 1576 (Fed. Cir. 1996).
36、Optical Disc Corp. v. Del Mar Avionics 208 F. 3d 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2000).
37、NeoMagic Corp. v. Trident Mictosystems, Inc. 287 F. 3d 1062 (Fed. Cir. 2002).
38、Astrazeneca AB v. Mutual Pharm. Co., 384 F. 3d 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2002).
39、Zodiac Pool Care, Inc. v. Hoffinger Industries, Inc. 206 F. 3d (Fed. Cir. 2000).
40、Autogiro Company of America v. The United States , 384 F. 2d 391 (Ct. Cl. 1967).
41、Karsten Mfg. Corp. v. Cleveland Golf Co., 242 F. 3d 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2001).
42、Texas Digital Systems, Inc. v. Telegenix, Inc., 308 F. 3d, 1193 (Fed. Cir. 2002).
43、Rexnord Corp. v. Laitram Corp.,274 F. 3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2001).
44、Phillips v. AWH Corp., 299 F. 3d 1313, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2002).(簡稱Phillips I).
45、Phillips v. AWH Corp., 363 F. 3d, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2004).(簡稱Phillips II).
46、Phillips v. AWH Corp., 376 F. 3d, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 2004).(簡稱Phillips III).
47、Phillips v. AWH Corp. 415 F. 3d 1303, 1309 (Fed. Cir. 2005).(簡稱Phillips IV).
48、Nazomi Communications, Inc. v. ARM Holdings, PLC, 403 F. 3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
49、Terlep v. Brinkman Corp., No.04-1337 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 16, 2005).
50、Texas Instruments, Inc. v. United States ITC, 988 F. 2d 1165 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
51、Toro Co. v. White Consol. Indus., 199 F. 3d 1295 (Fed. Cir. 1999).
52、Cybor Corp. v. FAS Techs., Inc., 138 F.3d 1448 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (en banc).
53、Pennwalt Corp. v. Durand-Wayland, Inc., 833 F.2d 931 (Fed. Cir. 1987).
54、Graver Tank & Mfg. Co.v. Linde Air Prods. Co., 339 U.S. 605 (1950).
55、Dolly, Inc. v. Spalding & Evenflo Co., 16 F.3d 394 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
56、Kustom Signals Inc. v. Applied Concepts, Inc., 264 F.3d 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2001).
57、Maxwell v. J. Baker, Inc., 86 F.3d 1098 (Fed. Cir. 1996).
58、Marquip, Inc. v. Forsber Am., Inc., 198 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 1999).
59、Fay v. Cordesman, 109 U.S. 408 (1883).
60、Lemelson v. United States, 752 F.2d 1538 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
61、Hughes Aircraft Company v. United States, 717 F.2d 1531 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
62、Prouty v. Draper , 41 U.S. 335 (1842).
63、Vance v. Campbell, 66 U.S. 427 (1861).
64、Eames v. Godfrey, 68 U.S. 78 (1864).
65、Pennwalt Corporation v. Durand-Wayland,Inc. 833 F.2d, 931 (Fed. Cir. 1987).
66、Perkin-Elmer Corp. v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp., 822 F.2d 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1987).
67、Westinghouse v. Boyden Power Brake Company, 170 U.S. 537 (1898).
68、Leesona Corp. v. United States, 530 F.2d 896 (Ct. Cl. 1976).
69、Mead Digital Systems, Inc. v. A.B. Dick Co., 723 F.2d 455 (6th Cir. 1983).
70、Texas Instruments v. United States International Trade Commission, 805 F.2d 1558 (Fed. Cir.1986).
71、SRI International v. Matsushita Electric Corp. of America, 775 F.2d 1107 (Fed. Cir. 1989).
72、Winans v. Denmead 56 U.S. 330 (1853).
73、Warner-Jenkinson Co. Inc. v. Hilton Davis Chemical Co., 520 U.S. 17 (1997).
74、Perkin-Elmer Corporation v. Westinghouse Electric Corporation, 822 F.2d 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1987).
75、Hughes Aircraft Company v. United States, 717 F.2d 1351 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
76、Texas Instruments v. United States International Trade Commission, 805 F.2d 1558 (Fed. Cir.1986).
77、Lemelson v. United States, 752 F.2d 1538 (Fed. Cir.1985).
78、Perkin-Elmer Corp. v. Westinghouse Electric Corp., 822 F.2d 1528 (Fed. Cir.1987).
79、Pennwalt Corp v. Durand-Wayland Inc., 833 F.2d 931 (Fed. Cir.1987).
80、Corning Glass Works v. Sumitomo Electric, 868 F.2d 1251 (Fed. Cir. 1989).
81、Sun Studs, Inc. v. ATA Equipment Leasing, Inc., 872 F.2d 978 (Fed. Cir.1989).
82、Wilson Sporting Goods Co. v. David Geoffrey & Associates , 904 F. 2d 677 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
83、Genentech, Inc. v. wellcome Foundation Ltd, 31 U.S.P.Q. 2d 1161 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
84、Inverness Medical Switzerland GmbH v. Princeton Biomeditech Corp., 384 F.2d 391 (Ct. Cl. 1976).
85、McGill Inc. v. John Zink Co., 736 F.2d 666 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
86、Pall Corp. v. PTI Techs., Inc., 59 U.S.P.Q. 2d 1763 (Fed. Cir. 2001).
87、General Instrument Corp. v. Huges Aircraft Co. 226 U.S.P.Q. 289 (1968).
88、Unique Concepts, Inc. v. Brown, 939 F.2d 1558 (Fed. Cir. 1991).
89、Slater Electric Inc. v. Thyssen-Bornemisza., 650 F. Supp. 444 (S. D. N. Y. 1986).
90、Texas Instruments, Inc v. United States International Trade Commission, 988 F.2d 1165 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
91、Central Soya Co., Inc. v. Geo. A. Hormel & Co., 645 F. 2d 847 (10th Cir. 1981).
92、Schillinger v. Hurlbut, 130 U.S. 456 (1889).
93、Southwall Technologies Inc. v. Cardinal IG Co., 54 F.3d 1570 (Fed. Cir. 1995).
94、Festo Corp. v. Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki Co., U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21434 (1993).(以下簡稱Festo I)
95、Festo Corp. v. Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki Co., 72 F.3d 857 (1995). (以下簡稱Festo II)
96、Festo Corp. v. Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki Co., 520 U.S. 1111 (1997). (以下簡稱Festo III)
97、Festo Corp. v. Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki Co., 172 F.3d 1361 (Fed. Cir. 1999). (以下簡稱Festo IV)
98、Festo Corp. v. Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki Co., 234 F. 3d 558 (Fed. Cir. 2000). (以下簡稱Festo V)
99、Festo Corp. v. Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki Co., 535 U.S. 722, (2002). (以下簡稱Festo VI)
100、Festo Corp. v. Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki Co., 344 F.3d 1359 (2003). (以下簡稱Festo VII)
101、Maxwell v. J. Baker, Inc., 86 F. 3d 1098 (Fed. Cir. 1996).
102、Johnson & Johnston v. R.E. Service Co., 285 F. 3d 1046 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (en banc).
103、Honeywell International Inc. v. Hamilton Sundstrand Corporation, 523 F.3d 1304 (Fed. Cir. 2008).
(四) Internet
1、Adams, Charles W., The Doctrine of Equivalents: Becoming a Derelict on the Waters of Patent Law, 84 NEB. L. REV. 1113 (2006), available at http://www.lexisnexis.com. (last visited Feb. 10, 2008).
2、Gupta, Anand, Patent Law: The Supreme Court Reinforces the Validity of the Doctrine of Equivalents in Warner-Jenkinson Co. v. Hilton Davis Chemical Co., 23 S. ILL. U. L. J. 123 (1998), available at http://www.lexisnexis.com. (last visited Nov. 12, 2007).
3、Hartung, Kirk M., Claim Construction: Another Matter of Chance and Confusion, 88 J. PAT. & TRADEMARK OFF. SOC'Y 831 (2006), available at http://www.lexisnexis.com. (last visited Nov.13, 2007).
4、Harrell, Eric C., Room for Fancy Head: Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 23 OHIO N.U.L. REV. 1029 (1997), available at http://www.lexisnexis.com. (last visited Nov. 20, 2007).
5、Okun, Jason M., to Thine own Claim be Ture: The Federal Circuit Disaster in Exxon Chemical Patents, inc. V. Lubrizol Corp., 21 CARDOZO L. REV. 1335 (2000), available at http://www.lexisnexis.com. (last visited Nov. 16, 2007).
6、Weng, Li-Hua, Peamble Interpretation: larifying The "Giving Life, Meaning and Vitality" Language, 11 B.U. J. SCI. & TECH. L. 77 (2005), available at http://www.lexisnexis.com. (last visited Nov. 17, 2007).
(五) Article
1、35 U.S.C. §271 (a).
2、35 U.S.C. §271 (b).
3、35 U.S.C. §271 (c).
4、35 U.S.C. §271 (d).
5、35 U.S.C. §271 (e) (1).
6、35 U.S.C. §271 (f).
7、35 U.S.C. §271 (g).
8、35 U.S.C. §272.
9、35 U.S.C. §154.
10、U.S. Const. Art. I, §7.
11、U.S. Const. Art. I, §8 (8)
12、35 U.S.C. §100 (c).
13、35 U.S.C. §112 (1).
14、35 U.S.C. §112 (2).
15、35 U.S.C. §112 (6).
16、35 U.S.C. §120.
17、Patent Act of 1790, Ch. 7, § 2, 1 Stat. 109, 110.
18、Patent Act of 1793, Ch. 11, § 3, 1 Stat. 318.
19、Patent Act of 1836, Ch. 357, § 6, 5 Stat. 117.
20、Patent Act of 1870, Ch. 230, § 26, 16 Stat. 198, 201.
21、Rule 29 (1) EPC.
22、M.P.E.P. 2173.05 (h).