台灣科技業代工廠不論是以OEM、ODM或自有品牌的方式對外營業，美國均是其主要市場，故釐清專利權耗盡原則在美國專利制度中如何被解釋適用，對我國科技業代工廠具有相當借鑒意義(王鍾齊, 2009)。專利耗盡原則通常為國際專利侵權訴訟中常見的防禦方式，近期最受矚目的專利侵權案件，為美國聯邦最高法院於2008年裁定的Quanta Computer, Inc. v. LG Electronics, Inc.，首次引起近66年來專利耗盡原則議題備受討論。本論文集結相關判例分析專利耗盡原則，並對美國聯邦最高法院在Quanta案中，未對售後限制問題(Post-sale Limitation)做出正面回應，而影響後續專利耗盡案件的問題，做進一步解析。

以下為本研究的主要目的:
(1) 首先，藉由過往判例介紹專利耗盡原則的起源，完整描述Quanta案的事實背景與法院判決; 並列出可能排除專利耗盡適用的限制情況。
(2) 第二，針對Quanta案判決中衍生出的問題，探討售後限制的可行性。
(3) 最後，總結並統整可行的授權架構，提供擬定契約的專利權人、被授權人或購買者參考。
本研究結論強調專利耗盡原則的目的，乃維持公眾利益與私人利益之間的平衡; 允許施行專利法下的售後限制，即有可能減低自由市場的競爭力。因此，本研究不支持專利權人能在授權契約中，利用售後限制的方式，控制購買者行為。

Regardless of using OEM or ODM to carry out foreign business, U.S. is the major market of the sub-contractors of technology industry in Taiwan; thus, clarifying how doctrine of patent exhaustion is being explained and applied to the patent system in U.S. is significant to the sub-contractors of technology industry in Taiwan (王鍾齊, 2009). Doctrine of patent exhaustion is the defense that is always brought up in patent infringement litigation internationally. For the well-known patent exhaustion case in U.S., the Supreme Court decided Quanta Computer, Inc. v. LG Electronics, Inc. on June 9, 2008, marking the first time the Court had addressed the topic of patent exhaustion in sixty-six years. This paper collects precedents to analyze the principle of patent exhaustion doctrine. Moreover, it analyzes the effect of disclaiming the validity of post-sale limitation by U.S. Supreme Court to the future patent exhaustion cases.
In sum, the study concludes the purposes as follow:
(1) First, introduces the principle of patent exhaustion doctrine and make an overall view of Quanta case; subsequently, illustrate specific restrictions that narrow the enforceability of this doctrine in circumstances.
(2) Second, by proposing questions, discusses the viability of post-sale restriction based on the unclear issue derived from Quanta.
(3) Third, summarizes and sort out the useful license structure for patent holder, licensee or purchasers who may engage in negotiating, drafting, or enforcing license agreement in the future.
In conclusion, the fact that the study emphasizes the original purpose of patent exhaustion doctrine is to balance the public interest and private interest. Allowing the enforcement of post-sale restriction may destroy the balance of free competition on market. Hence, the study does not support the validity of post-sale restriction on purchaser under patent law.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHINESE ABSTRACT I
ENGLISH ABSTRACT II
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS IV
TABLE OF CONTENTS V
LIST OF FIGURES VIII
CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 Background of the Study 1
1.1.1 Patent Infringement 3
1.1.2 Patent Exhaustion Weakens Double Dipping 5
1.2 Purpose of the Study 7
1.3 Significance of the Study 8
1.4 Definition of the Terms 10
1.4.1 OEM/ODM 11
1.4.2 Intellectually Property 11
1.4.3 Patent holder/Licensor/Patentee 11
1.4.4 Licensee 12
1.4.5 License Agreement 12
1.4.6 Patent Law 13
1.4.7 Patent Exhaustion Doctrine 13
1.4.8 Patent Infringement 14
1.4.9 Restrictions on License 15
1.4.10 Restrictions on Sale 15
1.4.11 Post-sale Restrictions 15
CHAPTER TWO LITERATURE REVIEW 17
2.1 Patent Law 17
2.2 Patent Licensing 18
2.3 Restrictions, Conditions, and Patent Exhaustion 21
2.4 Patent Exhaustion Doctrine 21
2.4.1 The Legal Source of Exhaustion Doctrine in U.S. and Taiwan 25
2.4.2 The Principle of Patent Exhaustion Doctrine in Supreme Court 27
2.4.2.1 Bloomer v. McQuewan 27
2.3.2.2 Mitchell v. Hawley 29
2.4.2.3 Adams v. Burke 30
2.4.2.4 Keeler v. Standard Folding-Bed 32
2.4.2.5 Henry v. A.B. Dick Co. 33
2.4.2.6 Motion Picture Patents Co. v. Universal Film Mfg. Co. 34
2.4.2.7 General Talking Pictures Corp. v. Western Elec. Co. 36
2.4.2.8 United States v. Univis Lens Co. 37
2.4.2.9 Pre-Quanta Interpretation 40
2.4.3 The Principle of the Conditional Sale Doctrine in Federal Circuit 40
2.4.3.1 Mallinckrodt, Inc. v. Medipart, Inc. 41
2.4.3.2 B. Braun Med. Inc. v. Abbott Labs. 44
2.5 Restriction of Patent Exhaustion Doctrine 46
2.5.1 A Known, Explicitly Restriction Exclude Exhaustion 47
2.5.2 Method Claim Seeks to Avoid Exhaustion 50
2.5.3 Exhaustion by Incomplete Article 52
2.5.4 Limitations on Sale, Restrictions on Licensees 53
2.5.5 Post-sale Limitations, Restrictions on Purchasers 54
2.5.5.1 The Viability of Post-sale Restriction Remain Unsettle 56
2.5.6 Seed Cases and Other Replicable Technologies 58
2.6 Sales in Violation of License Restrictions Give Rise to Exhaustion 62
CHAPTER THREE METHODOLOGY 65
3.1 Study Methods 65
3.2 The Structure of the Research 66
CHAPTER FOUR ANALYSIS &; DISCUSSION 70
4.1 Facts and History of the Quanta Litigation 70
4.1.1 Factual background 71
4.1.2 Procedural History 74
4.1.2.1 District Court Proceeding 74
4.1.2.2 Federal Circuit Proceeding 76
4.1.2.3 Supreme Court Proceeding 78
4.2 The Unresolved Issue Remained after Quanta 81
4.2.1 Post Effect of Quanta: Criticisms on the Judgment 82
4.3 The Invalidity of Post-sale Restriction in Quanta 86
4.3.1 Conditional Sale Doctrine Abrogate the Patent Exhaustion Doctrine 87
4.3.2 Can the Post-sale Restriction be Applied Under Patent Law? 90
4.3.3 Why Quanta Court Fails to Discuss Mallinckrodt in Quanta? 92
4.3.4 Why Mallinckrodt cannot be Reconciled with Univis? 95
4.3.5 Will the Outcome be Different if LG Imposed the Post-sale Limitation on Intel’s Right to Sale in License Agreement? 97
4.3.6 Restrictions on Use or Resale after an Authorized Sale Potentially Enforceable under Contract Law 101
4.4 The Influence on License Structure after Quanta 103
4.4.1 Request Up-front Royalties at the Point of Sale 106
4.4.2 Restrict Licensee’s Act of Selling to Arrange the License Structure 106
4.4.2.1 Request for Selling Certain Purchaser 107
4.4.2.2 Only to Sale Purchasers Who Have Signed the Agreement with Patentee 107
4.4.2.3 Only to Sale Purchaser Who Contractually Promised and Complied with the Agreement 108
4.4.3 Limit Purchasers’ Post-sale Use Under Contract Law 109
CHAPTER FIVE CONCLUSION 110
REFERENCES 112
APPENDIX 117
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 3.1: Flowchart of the Study 69
Figure 4.2: Graph of Quanta Relation 74

Chinese Reference
(一)博、碩士論文
王鍾齊(2009)。從Quanta Computer v. LG Electronics案論專利權耗盡原則，南台科技大學財經法研所碩士論文。
林珀如(2010)。美國專利權耗盡原則之研究：以聯邦最高法院Quanta v. LGE判決造成之衝擊與反思為中心，交通大學科法所碩士論文。
林靜雯(2011)。由美國判決發展看以契約排除權利耗盡原則適用的容許性，交通大學科法所碩士論文，2011年。
黃柏仁(2012)。由廣達電腦對LG電子案看專利法上權利耗盡原則－從比較法的角度出發，東吳大學法學所碩士論文。
楊淑芳(2004)。專利權耗盡原則與默示授權原則，世新大學法研所碩士論文。
(二)期刊
李森堙(8, 2009)，專利耗盡與基改種子販售後使用限制：Quanta案判決觸發之新觀點。科技法律透析，21卷8期，31-35。
李森堙(7, 2009)。淺談美國最高法院Quanta案判決對專利耗盡原則之釐清。科技法律透析，20卷7期， 27-31。
李森堙(8, 2007)。談專利耗盡--一個為專利權利畫界的原則。科技法律透析，19卷8期，24-39。
(三)書籍
林家亨(2008)。ODM大破解:國際代工設計製造買賣合約重點解析。臺北市:秀威資訊科技，88。

(四)報章雜誌
黃智銘，王尹軒 (9.27, 2007)。攸關台灣代工模式走向廣達LG專利糾紛美最高法院受理，工商時報。
陳致中 (2, 2004)。宏碁「微笑曲線」，遠見雜誌，212期。


English Reference
1.35 U.S.C. § 271(a) (2006).
2.Adams v. Burke, 84 U.S. 453, 456 (1873).
3.Rinehart , Amelia Smith, “Contracting Patents: A Modern Patent Exhaustion Doctrine,”23 Harvard Journal of Law &; Technology 483, 483-535 (2010).
4.Dufresne, Andrew T., “The Exhaustion Doctrine Revived? Assessing the Scope and Possible Effects of the Supreme Court’s Quanta Decision,” 24 Berkeley Technology Law Journal 11, 11-48(2009).
5.Doty, Ashley, Note, Leegin v. PSKS: New Standard, New Challenges, 23 BERKELEY TECH. L.J. 655, 682 (2008).
6.Bauer &; Cie v. O’Donnell, 229 U.S. 1(1913).
7.B. Braun Med., Inc. v. Abbott Labs., 124 F.3d 1419 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
8.Sharma, Bindu, “Minimizing patent infringement risk before product launch,” Express Pharma Flipbook (April 16-30, 2011), available at http://pharma.financialexpress.com/20110430/management03.shtml (Last visited on January 15, 2013).
9.Bowman v. Monsanto Co., 569 U.S. (2013).
10.Braun Medical, Inc. v. Abbott Laboratories, 124 F.3d 1419(1997).
11.Cyrix Corp. v. Intel Corp., 846 F. Supp. 522 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
12.Winston , Elizabeth I., “Why Sell What You Can License? Contracting Around Statutory Protection of Intellectual Property,” 14 George Mason Law Review 93, 93-133 (2006).
13.Vliet, Emily Van, “Quanta and Patent Exhaustion: The Implications of the Supreme Court’s Decision in Quanta Computer, Inc. v. LG Electronics, Inc. One Year Later,” 11 Minnesota Journal of Law, Science and Technology 453, 453-475(2010).
14.Austin, Erin Julia Daida, “Reconciling the patent exhaustion and conditional sale doctrines in light of Quanta Computer v. LG Electronics,” 30 Cardozo Law Review 2947, 2947-2982(2009).
15.Kieff, F. Scott, “The Business Court: Quanta v. LG Electronics: Frustrating Patent Deals by Taking Contracting Options off the Table?” 2007-08 Cato Supreme court Review 315 (2007).
16.General Talking Pictures Corp. v. Western Elec. Co., 305 U.S. 124 (1938).
17.Wegner, Harold C., “Post-Sale Patentee Controls,” 7 The John Marshall Law School Review of Intellectual Property Law 682, 682-700(2008).
18.Henry v. A.B. Dick Co., 224 U.S. 1 (1912).
19.Intellectual Property Licensing: Forms and Analysis, by Richard Raysman, Edward A. Pisacreta and Kenneth A. Adler. Law Journal Press, 1998–2008. ISBN 973-58852-086-9.
20.Beard, James W., “The Limits of Licensing: Quanta v. LGE and the New Doctrine of Simultaneous Exhaustion,” 2008 UCLA Journal of Law and Technology 3, 1-70 (2008).
21.McCammon, Jason, “Recent Development: The Validity of Conditional Sales: Competing Views of Patent Exhaustion in Quanta Computer, Inc. v. LG Electronics, Inc., 128 S. Ct. 2109 (2008),” 32 Harvard Journal of Law &; Public Policy 785, 785-797(2009).
22.Fleishman, Joel L., “US Supreme Court to Clarify Patent Exhaustion Doctrine,” Asialaw (December 2007), available at http://www.asialaw.com/Article/1970869/Channel/16971/US-Supreme-Court-to-Clarify-Patent-Exhaustion-Doctrine.html (last visited on December 27, 2012).
23.Osborne, John W., “A Coherent View of Patent Exhaustion: A Standard Based on Patentable Distinctiveness,” 20 Santa Clara computer &; High Tech. L. J. 643 (2004).
24.Sievers, Jon, "Not so fast my friend: what the patent exhaustion doctrine means to the seed industry after Quanta v. LG electronics,”14 Drake Journal of Agricultural Law 355, 355-375(2009).
25.Werner, Jonathan, “Filling in the Gaps: The Limits of the Patent Exhaustion Doctrine in Light of the Supreme Court’s Inability to Find Closure in Quanta,” 15 Journal of Technology Law &; Policy 275, 275-294(2010).
26.Adamo, Kenneth R., Infringement, 3-30 Business Torts § 30.05(2012).
27.Rodkey, Kevin, “Exhaustion and Validity of Single-Use Licenses for Transgenic Seeds in the Wake of Quanta v. LG Electronics,” 19 Federal Circuit Bar Journal 579, 579-616(2010).
28.Costello, Kyle M., “The State of the Patent Exhaustion Doctrine, Post-Quanta v. LG Electronics,” 18 Texas Intellectual Property Law Journal 237, 237-266 (2010).
29.“Lexis-Nexis founder Don Wilson dies”,UPI.com (December 1, 2006), available on http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2006/12/01/Lexis-Nexis-founder-Don-Wilson-dies/UPI-36121164992489/ (last visited on January 5, 2013).
30.LG Elecs., Inc. v. Asustek Computer, Inc., 65 USPQ 2d 1589, 1589-1600 (N.D. Cal 2002).
31.LG Elecs., Inc. v. Asustek Computer, Inc., 248 F. Supp. 2d 912, 918 (N.D. Cal 2003).
32.LG Elecs., Inc. v. Bizcom Elecs., Inc., 453 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2006).
33.Mallinckrodt, Inc. v. Medipart, Inc., 976 F.2d 700 (Fed.Cir. 1992).
34.Downing, Marcella E Howk, The Horns of the Dilemma: The Application of the Doctrine of Patent Exhasution and Licensing of Patented Seed, 14 SAN JOAQUIN AGRIC. L. REV. 39 (2004).
35.Jager, Melvin F., LICENSING LAW HANDBOOK (2006-2007ed. 2006).
36.Motion Picture Patents Co. v. Universal Film Mfg. Co., 243 U.S. 502, 516 (1917).
37.“Patent Infringement,” National Paralegal College (n.d.), available at http://nationalparalegal.edu/public_documents/courseware_asp_files/patents/Patents2/Infringement.asp (last visited on January 4, 2013).
38.Paul, John C.,“The U.S. Supreme Court Clarifies Patent Exhaustion,” FINNEGAN (September 1, 2008), available at http://www.finnegan.com/resources/articles/articlesdetail.aspx?news=2f28beea-b59e-4239-be87-1923cce2f378 (last visited on January 6, 2013).
39.Semprevio II, Philip G., “The Supreme Court Reviews the Doctrine of Patent Exhaustion: LG Electronics v. Quanta Computer,” 2009 Syracuse Science &; Technology Law Reporter 75, 75-101 (2009).
40.Quanta Computer, Inc. v. LG Electronics, Inc., 128 S. Ct. 28 (2007).
41.Quanta Computer, Inc. v. LG Electronics, Inc., 553 U.S. 617 (2008).
42.Mandell-Rice, Rachel E., “A Reasonable Rift?: Quanta, Leegin, and the Doctrinal Split in the Law of Vertical Resale Price Maintenance and Patent Exhaustion,” 19 The Federal Circuit Bar Journal 635, 635-662(2010).
43.Eisenberg, Rebecca S., Commentary, “The Supreme Court and the Federal Circuit: Visitation and Custody of Patent law,” 106 Michigan Law Review Impressions 28 (2007).
44.Shen, Rico , “Smiling Curve,” Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (November 2007), available at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Smiling_Curve.svg (last visited on July 5, 2013).
45.Robert W. G., Xuan-Thao N. and Danielle C. J.,“Overview of Licensing Transactions and Law,”LICENSE, 19, New York, NY: Aspen Publishers(2008).
46.Ghosh, Shubha, “Invention, Creation, &; Public Policy Symposium: Innovation &; Competition Policy: Carte Blanche, Quanta, and Competition Policy,” 34 Iowa Journal of Corporation Law 1209, 1209-1242 (2009).
47.Seidenberg, Steven, Patent Predicament, InsideCounsel Magazine(September 1, 2008), available at http://www.insidecounsel.com/2008/09/01/patent-predicament- (last visited on January 9, 2013).
48.Mota, Sue Ann, “The Doctrine of Patent Exhaustion: Not Exhausted by the Supreme Court in Quanta Computer v. LG Electronics in 2008,” 11 Smu Science and Technology Law Review 337, 337-348 (2008).
49.Goldenberg, Suzanne, “US Supreme Court rules for Monsanto in Indiana farmer''s GM seeds case,”, theguardian ( May 2013), available at http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2013/may/13/supreme-court-monsanto-indiana-soybean-seeds (last visited on June 19, 2013).
50.Cotter, Thomas F., Misuse, 44 HOUS. L. REV. 901, 904-06 (2007).
51.Hungar, Thomas G., “Observations Regarding the Supreme Court’s Decision in Quanta Computer, Inc. v. LG Electronics, Inc.,” 49 IDEA: The Intellectual Property Law Review 517, 521-522(2007).
52.Meece, Timothy C., Shareholder, Banner &; Witcoff, Ltd., U.S. Supreme Court Decides Patent Exhaustion Case in Quanta Computer, Inc. et al. v. LG Electronis, Inc., June 9, 2008, http://www.bannerwitcoff.com/docs/publications/articles/Quanta.pdf
53.Transcript of Oral Argument at 7-9, 31-34, Quanta computer, Inc., v. LG Elecs., 128 S. Ct.
54.United States v. General Electric Co., 272 U.S. 476 (1926).
55.United States v. Univis Lens Co., 316 U.S. 241 (1942).
56.U.S. CONST., art. I, § 8, cl. 8.
57.Wilcox, Deborah A. and Yang, Rosanne T., “Character Licensing.,” The Licensing Journal,January (2006), available at http://www.inc.com/encyclopedia/licensing-agreements.html (last visited on January 5, 2013).
58.Kong, Will, “China OEMs Continue to Grow Despite Economic Downturn,” iSuppli (2009), available at http://ebookbrowse.com/china-oems-continue-to-grow-despite-economic-downturn-pdf-d326951500 (last visited on June 3, 2013).
59.Lafuze, William, Justin Chen and Lavonne Burke, “The Conditional Sale Doctrine in a Post-Quanta World and its Implications on Modern Licensing Agreements,” 11 The John Marshall Law School Review of Intellectual Property Law 295, 295-317 (2011).
60.Landes, William M. and Posner, Richard A., THE ECONOMIC STRUCTURE OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW, 294 (2003), available at http://www.inc.com/encyclopedia/licensing-agreements.html (last visited on January 8, 2013).
61.wiseGEEK: clear answers for common questions, “What is OEM?” (n.d.), available at http://www.wisegeek.org/what-is-oem.htm (last visited on January 15, 2013).
62.Dong, Yina, “A Patent Exhaustion Exposition: Situating Quanta v. LGE in the Context of Supreme Court Jurisprudence,” Stanford Technology Law Review2, 2-79 (2010).
63.Watanabe, Yuichi, “The Doctrine of Patent Exhaustion: The Impact of Quanta Computer, Inc. v. LG Elecs., Inc.,”14Virginia Journal of Law and Technology 273, 273-296 (2009).