臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

現行專利制度下，獨立研發無法做為被告在專利侵權訴訟中之抗辯事由，導致獨立研發者在專利法之評價與仿冒者並無二致。獨立研發者必須付出研發成本卻無法實施自身開發之技術，致使獨立研發者在法律/經濟整體而言比仿冒者還糟。是以當一家公司發現其在技術開發上喪失（或可能喪失）領先地位時，最佳策略是放棄研發以避免重複研發之浪費，而非加緊研發以求迎頭趕上。本論文因而認為，現行專利制度鼓勵第二名以後之公司放棄研發，與專利制度鼓勵研發以促進科技進步之本質背道而馳。
為求貫徹專利法鼓勵研發之立法目的，本文主要研究目的之一在於建構一個法律體系，使得獨立研發者在法律/經濟整體上優於仿冒者，以鼓勵企業積極從事研發，無論其是否在研發上居於領先地位。本文由歷史面向、憲法面向、實證面向、及經濟面向之研究，指出在專利侵權糾紛中接受獨立研發抗辯是合理且可行的，且可達到讓獨立研發者在法律/經濟整體上優於仿冒者之研究目的。為期在保護專利排他權及鼓勵研發間取得平衡，本文更建議法院在審理暫時禁制令及永久禁制令時，將被告之獨立研發抗辯納入考量。本文指出，若被告可證明其所製造販賣之被控侵權品確實是自己獨立研發而得，法院在個案審酌暫時禁制令及永久禁制令之四個衡平因素時，都有不核發禁制令之考量空間。

As the independent invention is unacceptable under the current patent system, an independent developer is poorer than a free rider. Whenever a company finds that it has lost (or is likely to lose) the lead in technology development, the best policy for the company is to give up research activities to avoid wasteful duplication, rather than to catch up. This dissertation finds that it is absurd to establish a patent system to encourage a second-lead company to give up its research activities.
One of the primary purposes of this dissertation is to suggest a system in which an independent developer will have a better position than a free rider, in order to encourage enterprises to continue to research and develop despite whether they take the lead in technology development. From different perspectives, including historical, constitutional, empirical, and economic, this dissertation finds that the independent invention defense is reasonable and worth being considered in patent-related disputes. To create the aforementioned system and to harmonize the measures of protecting patent rights with the purpose of promoting the progress of useful art, this dissertation suggests considering the independent invention defense in evaluating the four factors of preliminary injunction and permanent injunction proceedings as a mechanism to balance a patentee’s right to exclude and the public’s productive uses of science and technology.

Chapter 1: Introduction 1
1.1 Research Motive 1
1.2 Research Objective 8
1.3 Research Methods 9

Chapter 2: Patent’s Right to Exclude and the First Insight of Independent Invention Defense 13
2.1 The Nature of Patent’s Right to Exclude 13
2.1.1 The Patent Right is a Right to Exclude 13
2.1.2 Injunctive Relief: Most Important Aspect of the Patent’s Right to Exclude 17
2.2 A Patent Right is Much Stronger than a Copyright and a Trademark 18
2.2.1 The Independent Invention is NOT a defense in the Patent Infringement Litigation 19
2.2.2 Possession of a Patent is NOT a defense in the Patent Infringement Litigation 20
2.2.3 Empirical Study 21
2.2.4 The Influence on Industries in the Absence of the “Independent Invention Defense” and “Possession of Patent Defense” 27
2.3 Theories of Patent’s Right to Exclude 32
2.3.1 The Nature Right Theory and the Fruit of Labor Theory 32
2.3.2 Invention Disclosure Theory 34
2.3.3 Invention Stimulation Theory 36
2.3.4 Investment Stimulation Theory and Prospect Theory 37
2.3.5 Conclusion 40
2.4 Debates about the Independent Invention Defense 40
2.4.1. Arguments for the Independent Invention Defense 41
2.4.2 Arguments Against the Independent Invention Defense 45
2.4.3 This Dissertation Supports the Independent Invention Defense 46
2.5 The Possible Implementations of the Independent Invention Defense 47
2.5.1 Not Covered by the Effect of Patent Right 47
2.5.2 Determine Whether a Defendant is Willfully Liable 50
2.5.3 Deny the Motion for Injunctive Relieves 51

Chapter 3: Comparative and Empirical Researches of Preliminary Injunction 53
3.1 Nature of Preliminary Injunction 53
3.2 Patent Preliminary Injunction in the United States 57
3.2.1 The Four-factor Test in the United States 57
3.2.2 The Empirical Study of the Four-factor Test in the United States 61
3.2.3 Analysis of the Empirical Study 84
3.3 Patent Preliminary Injunction in China 86
3.3.1 Law and Regulations 86
3.3.2 Case Review of Preliminary Injunctions in China 94
3.4 Patent Preliminary Injunction in Taiwan 98
3.4.1 Legal Development of Preliminary Injunctions 98
3.4.2. Traditional Viewpoint of Preliminary Injunctions in Taiwan Before July, 1, 2008 104
3.4.3 New System of the Preliminary Injunctions in Taiwan 112
3.5 Compensations to the Wrongfully-enjoined Defendants 115
3.5.1 Issues from a Wrongful Preliminary Injunction 115
3.5.2 The Compensations to the Wrongfully-enjoined Defendants-- A Comparative Study 117
3.5.3 Wrongfully-enjoined Defendants are Commonly Under-compensated in Taiwan 128
3.5.4 A Milestone Case in Taiwan and Comments 132
3.5.5 Conclusion 138
3.6 Rethinking the Preliminary Injunction Standards 140
3.6.1 Lessons from China and Taiwan 140
3.6.2 The Preliminary Injunction should be a Drastic and Extraordinary remedy 145
3.6.3 The Defendant Invented the Accused Products Independently—Under the Research of this Dissertation 148

Chapter 4: Radically-changing Standard of Permanent Injunction 151
4.1 Pre-eBay Era 151
4.1.1 Laws of Permanent Injunctions in the United States 151
4.1.2 General Rule adopted by the Federal Circuit 152
4.2 Decisive eBay Case 153
4.2.1 Background 153
4.2.2 The decision of The Supreme Court 155
4.2.3 The Second District Court’s Decision 157
4.3 Recent Developments after eBay 159
4.3.1 Cases Granting a Permanent Injunction 159
4.3.2 Injunction Denied--“Creative Mechanisms” for the Cases Found Infringement but not Granted Permanent Injunctions 184
4.3.3 Review of the Four eBay Factors 202
4.4 Key Elements Considered by the Courts While Determining Permanent Injunction 214
4.4.1 Direct Competitors or Lack of Commercial Activity—Influencing on the Factors of Irreparable Harm, Adequacy of Damages and Balance of Hardship 214
4.4.2. Desire to License and Obtain Royalties—Influencing on the Factors of Irreparable Harm, Adequacy of Damages and Balance of Hardship 217
4.4.3 Business Model Patents—Influencing on the Public Interest Factor 218
4.4.4 Not Moved for a Preliminary Injunction—Influencing the Factor of Irreparable Harm 218
4.4.5 Patented Invention is only a Small Component of the Whole Accused Product—Influencing on the Factors of Adequacy of Damages and Balance of Hardship 219
4.4.6 Patent-in-Suit is almost Expired—Influencing on the Factor of Adequacy of Damages 220
4.4.7 The Defendant Invented the Accused Products Independently—Under the Research of this Dissertation 221
4.5 Influences on Non-Practicing Entities after eBay 222
4.5.1 Introduction to Non-Practicing Entities 222
4.5.2. Few Permanent Injunctions Granted to Non-Practicing Entities after eBay 224
4.5.3 Pure Trolls v. R&;D-Based NPEs 225
4.5.4 The differential Considerations of Granting a Permanent Injunction between R&;D-based NPEs and Pure Trolls 227
4.5.5. When NPEs Meet Independent Developers 230

Chapter 5: Applying Independent Invention Defense to Patent Injunction Proceedings 233
5.1 Historical Perspective: The Form and Strength of Patent Right are Drifting in Patent History 233
5.1.1 Patent Right was a “Monopoly of Sale” in Early Patent Law of the United Kingdoms 233
5.1.2 Patent Rights were Substantive “Rights to Manufacture, Sell, and Use” in Early Patent Laws 236
5.1.3 Patent Right Changed to “Right to Exclude” in the Last Half of 1900’s 247
5.1.4 Patent Right is Still the “Right to Exclude” under the Current Patent Laws but has been Weakened by eBay 250
5.1.5 Short Conclusions 251
5.2 Theoretical Perspective: Easily Granted Injunctions may be Harmful to the Progress of Useful Art and the Freedom to Speech 252
5.2.1 Easily Granted Injunction may be Harmful to the Progress of Useful Arts 252
5.2.2. Easily Granted Injunctions may be Harmful to the Freedom to Express 256
5.3 Empirical Perspective: The Wrongfully-enjoined Defendant is Generally Under-compensated 258
5.3.1 The Decision of Granting Preliminary Injunction is Fallible 258
5.3.2. The Wrongfully-enjoined Defendants are Generally Under-compensated 258
5.4 Economic Perspective: The Independent Invention Defense is a Win-win-win Policy 261
5.4.1. Independent Invention is a Waste in the Current Patent System 261
5.4.2 The Independent Invention Defense is a Win-win-win to Improve the Patent System 264
5.4.3 The Acceptance of Independent Invention Defense Will Provides a Better Position for an Independent Developer than a Free Rider 266
5.5 Considering Independent Invention in Adjudicating Injunctive Relief 269
5.5.1 Burden of Proving Independent Invention 269
5.5.2 Considering Independent Invention Defense in Adjudicating Motion for Preliminary Injunction 270
5.5.3 Considering Independent Invention Defense in Adjudicating Motion for Permanent Injunction 276

CHAPTER 6: CONCLUSION 281
References: 291

Reference:
Books:
ADELMAN, MARTIN J. , RADER, RANDALL R., THOMAS, JOHN R. &; WEGNER, HAROLD C., CASES AND MATERIALS ON PATENT LAW (2003).
FRIEDMAN, DAVID, LAW’S ORDER (2000).
BURNHAM, WILLIAM, INTRODUCTION TO THE LAW AND LEGAL SYSTEM OF THE UNITED STATES (2003).
COOTER, ROBERT &; ULEN, THOMAS, LAW AND ECONOMICS 133 (3rd ed. 2000).
DRAHOS, PETER, A PHILOSOPHY OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY (1996).
GUELLEC, DOMINIQUE, THE ECONOMICS OF THE EUROPEAN PATENT SYSTEM: IP POLICY FOR INNOVATION AND COMPETITION (2007).
LANDES, WILLIAM M. &; POSNER, RICHARD A., THE ECONOMIC STRUCTURE OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW (2003).
MACLEOD, CHRISTINE, INVENTING THE INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION: THE ENGLISH PATENT SYSTEM, 1660-1800 (2002).
MOORE, KIMBERLY A., MICHEL, PAUL R. &; LUPO, RAPHAEL V., PATENT LITIGATION AND STRATEGY (2003).
ROSENBERG, PETER D., PATENT LAW FUNDAMENTALS (1997).

Articles:
Alexander, Randal S., China’s Struggle to Maintain Economic Viability While Enforcing International and Domestic Intellectual Property Rights, 4 J. MARSHALL REV. INTELL. PROP. L. 608 (2005).
Armond, Michelle, Introducing The Defense of Independent Invention to Motions for Preliminary Injunctions in Patent Infringement Lawsuits, 91 CAL. L. REV. 117 (2003).
Bai, J. Benjamin, Wang, Peter J. &; Cheng, Helen, What Multinational Companies Need to Know About Patent Invalidation and Patent Litigation in China, 5 NW. J. OF TECH. &; INTELL. PROP., 448 (2007).
Beck, Roger L., The Prospect Theory of the Patent System and Unproductive Competition, in RESEARCH IN LAW AND ECONOMICS 194 (1983).
Beckerman-Rodau, Andrew, Prior Restraints and Intellectual Property: The Clash between Intellectual Property and the First Amendment from an Economic Perspective, 12 Fordham Intell. Prop. Media &; Ent. L.J. 1 (2001).
Blair, Roger D., Thomas F. Cotter, Strict Liability and Its Alternatives in Patent Law, 17 BERKELEY TECH. L.J. 799 (2002).
Carroll, Michael W., Patent Injunctions and the Problem of Uniformity Cost, 13 MICH. TELECOMM. TECH. L. REV. 421 (2007).
Cheng, Y.C., Lan, Y. H. &; Liu, S.J., Patent Market Dynamics: In View of the Business Models of Non-Practicing Entities, presented at the 1st International Conference on Management of Intellectual Property and Strategy [MIPS2012] (2012).
Chan Jeremiah, et. al, Footsteps of the Patent Troll, 10 INTELL. PROP. L. BULL. 1 (2005-2006).
Chao, Bernard H., After eBay, Inc. v. MercExchange: The Changing Landscape for Patent Remedies, 9(2) MINN J. L. SCI. &; TECH. 543 (2008).
Coleman, Deborah A., Antitrust Issues in the Litigation and Settlement of Infringement Claims, 37 AKRON L. REV. 263 (2004).
Cotropia, Christopher A., The Individual Inventor Motif in the Age of the Patent Troll, 12 YALE J.L. &; TECH. 52 (2009-2010).
Crane, Jennifer A., Riding The Tigers: A Comparison of Intellectual Property Rights in the United States and The People’s Republic of China, 7 CHI.-KENT J. INTELL. PROP. 95 (2008).
Davis, Robin M., Failed Attempts to Dwarf the Patent Trolls: Permanent Injunctions in Patent Infringement Cases Under the Proposed Patent Reform Act of 2005 and eBay v. MercExchange, 17 CORNELL J. L. &; PUB. POL'Y 431 (2008).
Dent, Chris, “Generally Inconvenient”: The 1624 Statute of Monopolies as Political Compromise, 33 MELBOURNE UNIVERSITY L. R. 415 (2009).
Diessel, Benjamin H., Note: Trolling for Trolls: The Pitfalls of the Emerging Market Competition Requirement for Permanent Injunctions in Patent Cases Post-eBay, 310 MICHIGAN L. REV. 305 (2007).
d'Incelli, Gregory, Has Ebay Spelled the End of Patent Troll Abuses - Paying the Toll: The Rise (and Fall) of the Patent Troll, 17 U. MIAMI BUS. L. REV. 343 (2008-2009).
Eisenberg, Rebecca S., Patent and the Progress of Science: Exclusive Rights and Experimental Use, 56 U. CHI. L. REV. 1017 (1989).
Fischer, James M., The “Right” To Injunctive Relief For Patent Infringement, 24 SANTA CLARA COMPUTER &; HIGH TECH. L.J. 1 (2007).
Fitzgerald, David A. II, Saving Alternative Dispute Resolution in Patent Law: Countering the Effects of the Patent Troll Revolution, 23 OHIO ST. J. ON DISP. RESOL. 345 (2007-2008).
Gallini, Nancy T, The Economics of Patents: Lessons from Recent U.S. Patent Reform, 16 J. ECONOMIC PERSPECTIVES 131 (2002).
George, Gavin D., What is Hiding in the Bushes? eBay’s Effect on Holdout Behavior in Patent Thickets, 13 MICH. TELECOMM. TECH. L. REV. 557 (2007).
Golden, John M., Innovation Dynamics, Patents, and Dynamic-Elasticity Tests for the Promotions of Progress, 24 HARV. J. L &; TECH. 47 (2010).
Gosen, Conrad, Tivo, Inc. v. EchoStar Corp.: Providing Clarity to Contempt Proceedings in Patent Cases, 27 BERKELEY TECH. L. J. 273 (2012).
Grosskopf, Ofer et.al, Remedies for Wrongfully-Issued Preliminary Injunctions: The Case for Disgorgement of Profits, 32 SEATTLE U.L. REV. 903 (2009).
Grumbles III,Ernst, et.al, Three Year Anniversary of eBay v. MercExchange: A Statistical Analysis of Permanent Injunctions, INTELL. PROP. TODAY, NOV. 2009.
Hand, Rebecca A., Note, eBay v. MercExchange: Looking at the Cause and Effect of a Shift in the Standard for Issuing Patent Injunctions, 25 CARDOZO ART. &; ENT. L.J. 461, 479 (2007).
Heller, Michael A. &; Eisenberg, Rebecca S., Can Patents Deter Innovation? The Anti-commons in Biomedical Research, 280 SCIENCE 698 (1998).
Helm, Jeremiah S., Why Pharmaceutical Firms Support Patent Trolls: The Disparate Impact of Ebay v. Mercexchange on Innovation, 13 MICH. TELECOMM. &; TECH. L. REV. 331 (2006-2007).
Homer, Aaron, Whatever it is… You can get it on eBay…Unless You Want an Injunction—How the Supreme Court and Patent Reform are Shifting Licensing Negotiations from the Conference Room to the Courtroom, 49 S. TEX. L. REV. 235 (2007).
Janutis, Rachel M., The Supreme Court’s Unremarkable Decision in eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C. 14 LEWIS &; CLARK L. REV. 597 (2010).
Jones, Miranda, Permanent Injunction, A Remedy by Any Other Name Is Patently Not The Same: How eBay v. Mercexchange Affects The Patent Right of Non-Practicing Entities, 58 GEO. MASON L. REV. 1036 (2007).
Kesan, Jay P. et.al., Re-engineering Patent Law: The Challenge of New Technologies: Part 1: Administrative Law Issues: Patents as Incomplete Contrasts: Aligning Incentives for R&;D Investment with Incentives to Disclose Prior Art, 2 WASH. U. J.L. &; POL’Y 23 (2000).
Kitch, Edmund W., The Nature and Function of the Patent System, 20 J.L. &; ECON. 265 (1977).
Klimczak,Ryan, i4i and the Presumption of Validity: Limited Concerns over the Insulation of Weak Patents, 27 BERKELEY TECH. L. J. 299 (2012).
Kramer, Michael S., Valuation and Assessment of Patents and Patent Portfolios Through Analytical Techniques, 6 J. MARSHALL REV. INTELL. PROP. L. 463 (2007).
Lanjouw, Jean O. et. al, Tilting the Table? The Use of Preliminary Injunctions, 14 J. L. &; ECON. 573 (2001).
Layne-Farrar, Anne &; Schmidt, Klaus M., Licensing Complementary Patents: “Patent Trolls,” Market Structure, and “Excessive” Royalties, 25 BERKELEY TECH. L. J. 1121 (2010).
Lee, Peter Yun-hyoung, Inverting the Logic of Scientific Discovery: Applying Common Law patentable Subject Matter Doctrine to Constrain Patents on Biotechnology Research Tool, 19 HARV. J. OF L.&; TECH. 79 (2005).
Lemley, Mark A., Should Patent Infringement Require Proof of Copying?, 105 MICH. L. REV. 1525 (2007).
, Are Universities Patent Trolls, 18 FORDHAM INTELL. PROP. MEDIA &; ENT. L.J. 611, 611 (2007-2008).
Machlup, Fritz et.al, The Patent Controversy in the Nineteenth Century, 10 J. ECONOMIC HISTORY 1 (1950).
Magliocca, Gerard N., Blackberries and Barnyards: Patent Trolls and the Perils of Innovation, 82 NOTRE DAME L. REV. 1809 (2006-2007).
Manzo, Edward D., Injunctions in Patent Cases After eBay, 7 J. MARSHALL REV. INTELL. PROP. L. 44 (2007).
Marbutt, Olivia E., Strategies for Combating Patent Trolls, 17 J. INTELL. PROP. L. 367 (2009-2010).
Maurer, Stephen M. &; Scotchmer, Suzanne, The Independent Invention Defense in Intellectual Property, 69 ECONOMICA 535 (2002).
May, Matthew J., Patent Reform, Injunctions, and Equitable Principle; A Triangle of Changes for the Future, J. MARSHALL REV. INTELL. PROP. L. 671 (2007).
Merges, Robert P., One Hundred Years of Solicitude: Intellectual Property Law, 1900-2000, 88 CAL. L. REV. 2187 (2000).
McDonough, James F., The Myth of the Patent Troll: An Alternative View of the Function of Patent Dealers in an Idea Economy, 56 EMORY L. J. 189 (2006).
Mello, J.P., Technology Licensing and Patent Trolls, 12 B.U. J. SCI. &; TECH. L. 388 (2006).
Mergers, Robert P., Property Rights Theory and the Commons: The Case of Scientific Research, in SCIENTIFIC INNOVATIONS, PHILOSOPHY, AND PUBLIC POLICY (1996).
, Introductory Note to Brief of Ammicus Curiae in eBay v. MercExchange, 21 BERKELEY TECH. L. J. 997 (2005).
, The Trouble With Trolls: Innovation, Rent-seeking, and Patent Law Reform, 24 BERKELEY TECH. L. J. 1583 (2009).
Michel, Suzanne, Bargaining for RAND Royalties in the Shadow of Patent Remedies Law,, 77 ANTITRUST L. J. 889 (2011).
Millard, Elizabeth E., Injunctive Relief in Patent Infringement Cases: Should Courts Apply a Rebuttable Presumption of Irreparable Harm After eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C.? 52 ST LOUIS U. L. J., 985 (2008).
Morgan, Marc, Stop Looking under the Bridge for Imaginary Creatures: A Comment Examining Who Really Deserves the Title Patent Troll, 17 FED. CIR. B.J. 165 (2008).
Mossoff, Adam, Exclusion and Exclusive Use in Patent Law, 22 HARV. J. L &; TECH. 321 (2009).
Mulder, Jeremy, Note, The Aftermath of eBay: Predicting When District Courts Will Grant Permanent Injunctions in Patent Cases, 22 BERKELEY TECH. L.J. 67 (2007).
Myers, Damian, Reeling in the Patent Troll: Was Ebay v. Mercexchange Enough, 14 J. INTELL. PROP. L. 333 (2006-2007).
Niro, Raymond P., Who Is Really Undermining the Patent System - Patent Trolls or Congress, 6 J. MARSHALL REV. INTELL. PROP. L. 185 (2006-2007).
O’Donnell, S. W., Unified Theory of Antitrust Counterclaims in Patent Litigation, 9 VA J. L. &; TECH. 1 (2004).
Orozco, David, Will India and China Profit from Technological Innovation?, 5 NW. J. OF TECH. &; INTELL. PROP., 425 (2007).
Ottoz, Elisabetta et.al, The Independent Invention Defense in a Cournot Duopoly Model, ECONOMICS BULLETIN, Vol. 12, No. 5 (2004).
Ouellette, Lisa Larrimore, Do Patents Disclose Useful Informations? 25 HARV. J. L &; TECH. 545 (2012).
Pincus, Laura B., The Computation of Damages in Patent Infringement Actions, 5 HARD. J. L. &; TECH. 95 (1991).
Pohl, Christian, Die Voraussetzungen der patentrechtlichen Zwangslizenz, 1998.
Powell, Thomas Reed, The Exclusive Right of the Patentee--Should the Right or Power To Exclude Others Be Dependent on Sale or Licensing by the Patentee?, 58 HARV. L. REV. 726 (1945).
Rai, Arti Kaur, Regulating Scientific Research: Intellectual Property Rights and the Norms of Science, 94 NW. U.L.REV. 77 (1999).
Rantanen, Jason, Slaying the Troll: Litigation as an Effective Strategy Against Patent Threats, 23 SANTA CLARA COMPUTER &; HIGH TECH. L. J., 159-210 (2006).
Reichman, J.H., Comments: Enforcing the Enforcement Procedures of the TRIPS Agreement, 37 VA. J. INT'L L. 335 (1997).
Riesenfeld, Stefan A., The New American Patent Act in the Light of Comparative Law: Part II, 102 U. PA. L. REV. 723, 746 (1954).
Royce, John R. et.al, Preliminary Injunctions and Damage Rules in Patent Law, Journal of Economics &; Management Strategy 16:2, 385 (2007).
Sanders, Barkev S. et.al., Attitudes of Assignees Toward Patented Inventions, 2 PAT, TRADEMARK &; COPYRIGHT J. RES. &; EDUC. 463 (1958).
Sandstrom, Kevin, How Much do We Value Research and Development?: Broadening the Experimental Use Exemption to Patent Infringement in Light of Integra Liefsciences I, Ltd v. Merck KGaA, 331 F.3D 860 (Fed. Cir. 2003), 30 WM. MITCHELL L. REV. 1059 (2004).
Schoenhard, Paul M., Who Took My IP? - Defending the Availability of Injunctive Relief for Patent Owners, 16 TEX. INTELL. PROP. L. J. 187 (2008).
Shapiro, Carl, Prior User Rights, 96 AM. ECON. REV. 92 (2006).
Tang, Yixin H., The Future of Patent Enforcement After eBay v. MercExchange, 20 HARV. J. L. &; TECH. 236 (2006).
Ullmer, Stephen M., Paice Yourselves: A Basic Framework for Ongoing Royalty Determinations in Patent Law, 24 BERKELEY TECH. L. J. 75 (2009).
U.S.: China Has High Rate of Intellectual Property Infringement, April 29, 2005, http://usinfo.state.gov/usinfo/Archive/2005/Apr/29-580129.html.
Vermont, Samson, Independent Invention as a Defense to Patent Infringement, 105 MICH. L. REV. 475 (2006).
Yu, Peter K., Three Questions That Will Make You Rethink the U.S.-China Intellectual Property Debate, 7 J. MARSHALL REV. INTELL. PROP. L. 412 (2008).

Cases:
1. U.S. Cases
3M v. Avery, 2006 WL 2735499 (D. Minn. 2006).
Abbott Laboratories v. Sandoz, Inc., 500 F. Supp. 2d 807 (N.D. III 2007) (Preliminary Injunction Order).
Abbott Laboratories v. Sandoz, Inc.,544 F. 3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2008).
Abbott Labs. v. Andrx Pharms. Inc., 473 F. 3d 1196 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
Abbott Labs. v. Teva Pharms. Inc., 452 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2006).
Abbott Labs. v. Andrx Pharms., Inc., 452 F. 3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2006).
Acumed LLC v. Stryker Corp., 2006 WL 3409074 (D. Or. 2006).
Acumed LLC v. Stryker Corp., 483 F. 3d 800 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
Acumed LLC v. Stryker Corp., 2007 WL 4180682 (D. Or. 2007).
Acumed LLC v. Stryker Corp., 551 F. 3d 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2008).
Adams v. Burke, 84 U.S. 17 Wall. 453 (1873).
Adolph Coors Co. v. A &; S Wholesalers, Inc., 561 F.2d 807 (10th Cir. 1977).
Ala. ex rel. Siegelman v. U.S. Envtl. Prot. Agency, 925 F.2d 385 (11th Cir. 1991).
Amazon.com, Inc. v. Barnesandnoble.com, Inc., 239 F. 3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2001).
American Safety Device Co. v. Kurland Chemical Co., 68 F.2d 734 (2nd Cir. 1934).
Amoco Production Co. v. Gambell, 480 U.S. 531, 542 (1987).
Apple Inc., v. Samsung Elecs. Co., 2011 WL 7036077 (N.D.Cal. 2011).
Apple Inc., v. Samsung Elecs. Co., 678 F. 3d 1314, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2012).
Aro Mfg. Co. v. Convertible Top Replacement Co., 377 U.S. 476 (1964).
Atomic Oil Co. v. Bardahl Oil Co., 419 F.2d 1097, 1100-03 (10th Cir.1969).
Automated Merchandising System v. Crane Co., 357 Fed.Appx. 297, 2009 WL 4878643 (C.A.Fed. (W.Va.) 2009).
Bateman v. Ford Motor Co., 310 F. 2d 805, 808 (3rd Cir. 1962).
Bio-Technology Gen. Corp. v. Genentech, Inc., 80 F. 3d 1553 (Fed. Cir. 1996).
Bloomer v. McQuewan, 55 U.S. 14 How. 539 (1852).
Boehringer Ingelheim Vetmedica v. Schering-Plough, 106 F. Supp. 2d 696 (D.N.J. 2000).
Bonito Boat, Inc. v. Thunder Craft Boats, Inc., 489 U.S. 141, 146 (1989).
Broadcom Corp. v. Qualcomm Inc., No. 05-CV-467 (C.D. Cal. 2007).
Broadcom Corp. v. Qualcomm Inc., 543 F. 3d 683 (Fed. Cir. 2008).
Buddy System, Inc. v. Exer-Genie, Inc., 545 F. 2d 1164 (9th Cir. 1976).
Canon, Inc. v. GCC Int'l Ltd., 450 F.Supp.2d 243, 254 (S.D.N.Y.2006).
Canon, Inc. v. GCC Int'l Ltd., 2007 U.S. App. LEXIS. 26584 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
Chamberlain Group, Inc. v. Lear Corp., Inc., 2007 WL 1017751 (N.D.Ill. 2007)(Preliminary Injunction Order).
Chamberlain Group, Inc. v. Lear Corp., Inc., 516 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2008).
Colan v. Holder, 132 S.Ct. 873 (2012).
Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization v. Buffalo Technology Inc. and Buffalo, Inc., 492 F.Supp.2d 600 (E.D. Texas, 2007).
Coyne-Delany Co. v. Capital Dev. Bd., 717 F. 2d 385 (7th Cir. 1983).
Cybor Corp. v. FAS Tech., Inc., 138F.3d 1448 (Fed.Cir.1998) (en banc).
Deerfield Med. Ctr. v. City of Deerfield Beach, 661 F. 2d 328 (5th Cir. 1981).
eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C., 547 U.S. 388 (2006).
eBay Inc. v. Bidder’s Edge, Inc., 100 F. Supp. 2d 1058 (N.D. Cal. 2000).
Eldred v. Ashcroft, 537 U.S. 186 (2003).
Eli Lilly &; Co. v. Premo Pharm. Labs., Inc.,630 F.2d 120 (3rd Cir.1980).
Erico Int'l Corp. v. Doc's Mktg., Inc., 2006 WL 1174259 (N.D.Ohio 2006)(Initial Order).
Erico Int'l Corp. v. Doc's Mktg., Inc., 2007 WL 108450 (N.D.Ohio 2007)(Reconsideration Order).
Erico Int'l Corp. v. Doc's Mktg., Inc., 516 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2008).
Finisar Corp. v. DirectTV Group, Inc. 2006 WL 2037617 (E.D. Tex. 2006).
Finisar Corp. v. DirectTV Group, Inc., 2006 WL 2709206 (E.D. Tex., 2006).
Finisar Corp. v. DirectTV Group, Inc., 523 F. 3d 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
Finisar Corp. v. DirectTV Group, Inc., 129 S. Ct. 745 (2008).
Forest City Daly Housing, Inc. v. Town of North Hempstead, 175 F. 3d 144, 153 (2nd Cir. 1999).
Foster v. American Mach. &; Foundry Co., 492 F2d 1317 (2 nd Cir. 1974).
Foster v. American Mach. &; Foundry Co., 297 F. Supp. 512 (S.D.N.Y. 1968).
Fresenius Med. Care Holdings, Inc. v. Baxter Int’l Inc., No. 03-CV-1431, 2008 WL 928496 (N.D. Cal. 2008).
Fresenius Med. Care Holdings, Inc. v. Baxter Int’l Inc., 582 F. 3d 1288 (Fed. Cir. 2008).
Georgia-Pacific Corp. v. United States Plywood Corp., 318 F. Supp. 1116 (S.D.N.Y. 1970).
Gitlow v. New York, 268 U.S. 652 (1925).
Global NAPs, Inc. v. Verizon New Eng., Inc., 489 F. 3d 13 (1st Cir. 2007).
Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1 (1966).
Great Allantic &; Pacific Tea Co. v. Supermarket Equipment Corp., 340 U.S. 147 (1950).
H &; R Block, Inc. v. McCaslin, 541 F. 2d 1098, 1099 (5th Cir. 1976).
Hoe v. Boston Daily Advertiser Corp., 14 F. 914 (C.C.Mass.1883).
Honeywell Int’l, Inc. v. Universal Avionics Sys. Corp., 397 F. Supp. 2d 537 (D. Del. 2005).
Hupp v. Siroflex of Am., Inc., 122 F. 3d 1456 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
Hybritech Inc. v. ABBOTT Lab., 849 F. 2d 1446 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
i4i Ltd. Partnership v. Microsoft Corp., 670 F. Supp. 2d 568, 572-573 (E.D. Tex. 2009).
i4i Ltd. v. Microsoft Corp., 598 F3d 831, 861 (Fed. Cir. 2009).
Impax Labs., Inc. v. Aventis Pharms., Inc., 235 F. Supp. 2d 390, 392 (D. Del. 2002).
In Edgar v. MITE Corp.,457 U.S. 624, 649 (1982).
Innogenetics v. Abbott Labs, 2007 WL 5431017 (W.D. Wis. 2007).
Innogenetics v. Abbott Labs, 512 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2008).
Instant Air Freight Co. v. C.F. Air Freight, Inc., 882 F.2d 797, 805 n. 9 (3rd Cir.1989).
Intel Corp. v. ULSI Sys. Tech., Inc., 995 F. 2d 1566 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Johnson &; Johnson Orthopaedics, Inc. v. Minnesota Min. &; Mfg. Co., 715 F. Supp. 110 (D. Del. 1989).
Kewanee Oil Co. v. Bicron Corp. et al, 416 U.S. 470 (1974).
Knights of Ku Klux Klan and Nathan Robb, v. Rkansas State Highway and Transportation, 807 F.Supp. 1427 (1992)
MercExchange v. eBay, 275 F. Supp. 2d 695 (E.D.Va.,2003).
MercExchange v. eBay, 401 F. 3d 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
MercExchange v. eBay, 546 U.S. 1029 (U.S. 2005).
MercExchange v. eBay, 547 U.S. 388 (U.S. 2006).
MercExchange v. eBay, 500 F. Supp. 2d 556 (E.D. Va., 2007).
Middlewest Motor Freight Bureau v. United States, 433 F.2d 212 (8th Cir.1970).
Microsoft Corp. v. i4i Ltd. Partnership, 564 U.S. ___ (2011).
MGM Well Servs., Inc. v. Mega Lift Sys. LLC, 505 F. Supp. 2d 359 (S.D. Tex. 2007).
Nat’l Kidney Patients Ass'n v. Sullivan, 958 F.2d 1127 (D.C.Cir.1992).
Nerney v. New York, N.H. &; H.R. Co., 83 F.2d 409 (2nd Cir. 1936).
Nintendo of Am., Inc. v. Lewis Galoob Toys, Inc., 16 F. 3d 1032 (9th Cir. 1994).
Nokia Corp. v. InterDigital Inc., 645 F. 3d 553 (2nd Cir. 2011).
Novartis Corp. v. Teva. Pharm. USA, Inc., 2007 WL 1695689 (D.N.J. 2007).
Novozymes A/S v. Genencor Int'l, Inc., 474 F. Supp. 2d 592 (D. Del. 2007).
O2 Micro Int’l Ltd. v. Beyond Innovation Tech. Co., 2007 WL 869576 (E.D. Tex. 2007).
O2 Micro Int’l Ltd. v. Beyond Innovation Tech. Co., 521 F.3d 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2008).
O2 Micro Int’l Ltd. v. Beyond Innovation Tech. Co., 2010 WL 8753254 (E.D. Tex. 2010).
O2 Micro Int’l Ltd. v. Beyond Innovation Tech. Co., 449 Fed. Appx. 923 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
Ortho-McNeil Pharmaceutical, Inc. v. Mylan Labs, Inc., 505 F. Supp 2d. 401 (N.D. Ohio 2007).
Ortho-McNeil Pharmaceutical, Inc. v. Mylan Labs, Inc., 520 F. 3d. 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2008).
Paice LLC v. Toyota Motor Corp. No. 2:04-CV-211-DF, 2006 WL 2385139 (E.D. Tex., 2006).
Paice LLC, v. Toyota Motor Corp.,504 F.3d 1293 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
Paice LLC v. Toyota Motor Corp., 609 F. Supp. 2d 620 (E.D. Tex. 2009).
Panduit Corp. v. Stahlin Brothers Fibre Works, Inc., 575 F. 2d 1152 (6th Cir. 1978).
Pfizer, Inc. v. Teva Pharms. USA, Inc., 429 F.3d 1364 (Fed.Cir.2005).
Polymer Technologies, Inc. v. Bridwell, 103 F. 3d 970 (Fed. Cir. 1996).
Procter &; Gamble Co. v. Ultreo. Inc., 574 F. Supp. 2d 339 (S.D.N.Y. 2008).
Purdue Pharma L.P. v. Boehringer Ingeheim GmbH, 237 F. 3d 13593 (Fed. Cir. 2001).
Ranbaxy Labs. Ltd. v. Abbott Labs., Abbott Labs. v. Andrx Pharms. Inc., Nos. 04 C 8078, 05 C 1490 (N.D. Ill Nov. 10, 2005)(Preliminary Injunction Order).
Richardson v. Suzuki Motor Co., 868 F. 2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1989).
Rite-Hite Corp. v. Kelley Co., 56 F. 3d 1538, cert denied, 516 U.S. 867 (1995).
Roper Corp. v. Litton Sys., Inc.,757 F.2d 1266, 1271 (Fed.Cir.1985).
Sanofi-Synthelabo v. Apotex, 488 F.Supp.2d 317 (S.D.N.Y. 2006)(Preliminary Injunction Order).
Sanofi-Synthelabo v. Apotex, Inc., 470 F. 3d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2006).
Schneider (Europe) AG v. Scimed Life Sys., 852 F. Supp. 813 (D. Minn. 1994).
Shatterproof Glass Corp. v. Libbey Owens Ford Co., 758 F. 2d 613 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Smith Int’l Inc. v. Hughes Tool Co., 718 F. 2d 1573 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
Smith &; Nephew, Inc. v. Synthes (U.S.A.), 466 F. Supp.2d 978 (W.D.Tenn. 2006).
Symbol Technologies Inc. v. Janam Technologies LLC, 729 F.Supp.2d 646 (D.Del. 2010).
Telequip Corp. v. Seoul Information Industrial, Inc, 2006 WL 2385425 (N.D.N.Y. 2006).
Telequip Corp. v. The Change Exchange, 2006 WL 2385425 (N.D.N.Y. 2006).
The Continuum Company, Inc. v. Incepts, Inc., ABS Ventures II, and ABA Excelsior II, 873 F.2d 801 (5th Cir. 1989).
Tivo v. EchoStar Communications Corp., 446 F. Supp. 2d 664‏ (E.D. Tex. 2006).
Tivo v. EchoStar Communications Corp., 516 F.3d 1290 (Fed. Cir. 2008).
Tivo v. EchoStar Communications Corp., 2006 WL 6830818 (E.D. Tex).
Torspo Hockey Int’l, Inc. v. Kor Hockey Ltd., 491 F. Supp. 2d 871 (D. Minn. 2007).
UNITED STATES of America v. Mary Frances CARRIER, 672 F.2d 300 (1982).
Visto Corp. v. Seven Networks, Inc., 2006 WL 3741891 (E.D.Tex. 2006).
Voda v. Cordis Corp. 536 F. 3d 1311 (Fed. Cir. 2008).
Voda v. Cordis Corp., 2006 WL 2570614 (W.D. Okl, 2006).
Wald v. Mudhopper Oilfield Servs., Inc., 2006 WL 2128851 (W.D. Okla, 2006).
Weinberger v. Romero-Barcelo, 456 U.S. 305 (1982).
Wellman Inc. v. Eastman Chemical Company, 2008 WL 4449608 (D.Del. 2008).
W.R. Grace &; Co. v. Local Union 759, Intern. Union of United Rubber, Cork, Linoleum and Plastic Workers of America, 461 U.S. 757 (1983).
Wilson v. Rousseau, 45 U.S. 4 How. 646 (1846).
z4 Technology, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 434 F. Supp. 2d 437 (E.D. Tex. 2006).

2. Taiwan Cases
61-Tai-Kan-506 (Supreme Court, 1972).
92-Chih-3 (Miao-Li District Court, 2003).
92-Chih-3 (Tainan District Court, 2003).
92-Chih-25 (Tainan District Court, 2003).
92-Suit-363 (Tao-Yuan District Court, 2003).
93-Chih-16 (Chang-Hwa District Court, 2004).
93-Tai-Kan-937 (Supreme Court 2004).
93-Tai-Kan-323 (Supreme Court 2004).
94-Chih-45 (Taipei District Court, 2005).
94-Chih-6 (Kaohsiung District Court, 2005).
94-Tai-Kan-792 (Supreme Court 2005).
94-Chih-27 (Taipei District Court, 2005).
95-Chih-1 (Chia-Yi District Court, 2006).
95-Chih-25 (Taichung District Court, 2006).
95-Chih-53 (Taichung District Court, 2006).
95- Chih-Geng-1 (Taichung District Court, 2006).
95-Tai-Kan-780 (Supreme Court, 2006).
95-Tai-Kan-156 (Supreme Court, 2006).
95-Tai-Kan-161 (Supreme Court, 2006).
95-Tai-Kan-231 (Supreme Court, 2006).
95-Tai-Kan-575 (Supreme Court, 2006).
95-Tai-Kan-523 (Supreme Court, 2006).
95-Tai-Kan-566 (Supreme Court, 2006).
95-Tai-Kan-462(Supreme Court, 2006).
95-Tai-Kan-575 (Supreme Court, 2006).
95-Tai-Kan-522 (Supreme Court, 2006).
95-Tai-Kan-268 (Supreme Court, 2006).
95-Tai-Kan-241 (Supreme Court, 2006).
95-Tai-Kan-522 (Supreme Court, 2006).
95-Tai-Kan-621 (Supreme Court 2006).
96-Tai-Kan-266 (Supreme Court, 2007).
96-Tai-Kan-327 (Supreme Court, 2007).
96-Tai-Kan-266 (Supreme Court, 2007).
96-Tai-Kan-266 (Supreme Court, 2007).
96-Tai-Kan-667 (Supreme Court, 2007).
96-Tai-Kan-183 (Supreme Court, 2007).
96-Tai-Kan-154 (Supreme Court, 2007).
96-Tai-Kan-667 (Supreme Court, 2007).
97-Min-Ta-Shang- 2 (IP Court, 2008).
97- Chih-Shan-18 (Taichung High Court, 2008).
97- Tai-Kan-561 (Supreme Court, 2008).
97-Ming-Chuan-Suit-5 (IP Court, 2008).
97-Ming-Chuan-Shan-20 (IP Court, 2008).
97-Min-Zhuan-Kang-19 (IP Court, 2008).
98- Tai-Shan-367 (Supreme Court, 2009).
98- Ming-Ta-Suit-1 (IP Court, 2009).
98- Ming-Gung-Suit-6 (IP Court, 2009).
98-Tai-Kang-713 (Supreme Court, 2009).
99-Ming-Kung-Shan-3 (IP Court, 2010).
98-Ming-Chung-Shan-30 (IP Court Court, 2011).
99-Ming-Chang-Sue-215 (IP Court, 2011).

3. China Cases
Der-Chung-Ming4-Injunction No. 66 (Intermediate People’s Court of Derchou, Sandung, 2006).
Fo-Chung-Fa-Ming3-Gin No.15 (Intermediate People’s Court of Foshan, Guangdong, 2006).
Fo-Chung-Fa-Ming3-Gin No.7 (Intermediate People’s Court of Foshan, Guangdong, 2007).
Fo-Chung-Fa-Ming3-Gin No.14 (Intermediate People’s Court of Foshan, Guangdong, 2006).
Fo-Chung-Fa-Ming3-Gin No.19 (Intermediate People’s Court of Foshan, Guangdong, 2005).
Fo-Chung-Fa-Ming3-Gin No.21 (Intermediate People’s Court of Foshan, Guangdong 2005).
Fo-Chung-Fa-Ming3-Gin No.15 (Intermediate People’s Court of Foshan, Guangdong, 2005).
Fo-Chung-Fa-Ming3-Gin No.13 (Intermediate People’s Court of Foshan, Guangdong, 2005).
Ning-Ming-3-First-382 (Nanjing Intermediate People’s Court, 2006).
Su-Injunction No. 0001 (JiangSu High People’s Court, 2005).
Su-Ming-3-Final-0071 (Jiangsu High People’s Court, 2008).
Wu-Zhi-Injunction No. 19 (Intermediate People’s Court of WuHand, Huba, 2006).

Others:
History of Patents, available at <http://www.ipo.gov.uk/p-history.htm> (last visited Oct. 11, 2012).
Senate Report No. 82-1979 (1952), available at <http://www.ipmall.info/hosted_resources/lipa/patents/patentact/senate_report_1979.htm>(last visited Jan. 8, 2013).
TO PROMOTE INNOVATION: THE PROPER BALANCE OF COMPETITION AND PATENT LAW AND POLICY: A REPORT BY THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, Fed. Trade Comm’n (October 2003), Ch. 2, at 20, at <http://www.ftc.gov/os/2003/10/innovationrpt.pdf>.
Tudors and Stuarts, available at <http://www.ipo.gov.uk/tpyes/patent/p-about/p-whatis/p-history/p-hostory-todor.htm> (last visited Oct. 11, 2012).
Wang, DoDo, The Supreme People’s Court mentioned that “Judicial Protection of Intellectual Property Rights is getting Wide and Strong,” < http://wr.cccv.cn/1181/dyn20071018172550799.shtm (2007.10.18)>.