跳到主要內容

臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

(44.200.194.255) 您好!臺灣時間:2024/07/23 04:53
字體大小: 字級放大   字級縮小   預設字形  
回查詢結果 :::

詳目顯示

我願授權國圖
: 
twitterline
研究生:林柏裕
研究生(外文):Po-Yu Lin
論文名稱:非專利實施實體之商業模式—以Acacia和Intellectual Ventures為例
論文名稱(外文):The Business Model of Nonpracticing Entities-Case Studies of Acacia and Intellectual Ventures
指導教授:江炯聰江炯聰引用關係
口試委員:馮震宇鄭中人林秋琴李治安
口試日期:2013-05-09
學位類別:碩士
校院名稱:國立臺灣大學
系所名稱:商學研究所
學門:商業及管理學門
學類:一般商業學類
論文種類:學術論文
論文出版年:2013
畢業學年度:101
語文別:中文
論文頁數:82
中文關鍵詞:非專利實施實體NPENPE商業模式AcaciaIntelletual Ventures
外文關鍵詞:Nonpracticing EntitiesNPENPE business modelAcaciaIntellectual Ventures
相關次數:
  • 被引用被引用:4
  • 點閱點閱:559
  • 評分評分:
  • 下載下載:0
  • 收藏至我的研究室書目清單書目收藏:1
非專利實施實體(NPE)不事生產,透過專利收購、專利授權與爭訟,將專利資產化以獲取收益。NPE在美國聯邦法院提出專利訴訟,策略性要求被控侵權企業給付高額之損害賠償金,或威脅禁止侵權產品在美國銷售,達到專利挾持之目的。雖然NPE認為他們的商業模式是提供資金予發明人從事創新和競爭,並且促進科技市場的交易效率。但事實上,NPE之商業模式可能會阻礙專利之擴散與運用。此新型態商業模式運用問題專利,超額領取權利金,已經對於全球大型資通訊技產業造成影響,因此亦有人以帶有負面意涵的專利蟑螂一詞,來描述這類企業體。本論文針對NPE商業模式進行研究,分析二間具代表性的NPE—Acacia和Intellectual Ventures之商業模式與營運邏輯,藉由透析NPE之商業模式,期以提供未來因應NPE之規範觀點。

Nonpracticing Entities (NPE) are firms that rarely or never practice their patents, and instead focus on earning licensing fees. Recognizing that the patent right can be monetized into licensing fees and damages in an action for patent infringement, NPE have undertaken formalized programs to gather or acquire patents in particular fields. Legal loopholes and inefficiencies in court practice have been identified as drivers of these patent holdup strategies. NPE and their supporters claim that these firms enhance innovation and competition by providing capital to independent inventors and creating an efficient market for trade in technological information. Critics of these firms, on the other hand, have labeled them “patent trolls” and claim that they use weak and vague patents to extract excessive licensing fees. The goal of this ariticle is to shed some light on the business models of Acacia and Intellectual Ventures, analyzing theirs economics and implications in order to offer some normative considerations.

第一章 緒論 1
第一節 研究背景與研究動機 1
第二節 研究目的與研究問題 6
第三節 研究範圍與研究背景 7

第二章 文獻回顧 9
第一節 NPE的定義 9
第二節 NPE專利收購 12
第三節 NPE專利資產化 13
第四節 NPE對專利市場的影響 16
第五節 NPE商業模式 18

第三章 NPE產業與美國專利爭訟程序 21
第一節 NPE現況與發展 21
第二節 美國專利爭訟程序 28

第四章 NPE商業模式 44
第一節 Acacia 44
第二節 Intellectual Ventures 56
第三節 小結 69

第五章 結論與建議 73

參考文獻 78

附錄:NTP控告Research in Motion Ltd.案 81


王承守, & 鄧穎懋. (2006). 美國專利訴訟實務及攻防策略: 北京大學出版社.
向乾瑋. (2013). Acacia Research的經營商業模式. 科技法律透析, 25(1).
周碧凰. (2012). 美國專利法修正案概況介紹. 萬國法律, 183.
陳志清. (2010). 企業與未實施專利實體之互動關係與因應策略(上). 專利師.
陳志清. (2010). 企業與未實施專利實體之互動關係與因應策略. 專利師.
陳志清. (2011). 專利權買賣之初探. 專利師(5).
陳冠中. (2011). 專利實務發展. 全國律師月刊, 15(7).
馮震宇. (2011). 鳥瞰21世紀智慧財產:從創新研發到保護運用.
馮震宇. (2012). 搞懂智財遊戲規則 殺出專利叢林重圍. 能力雜誌.
楊長峰. (2011). 產業專利策略實務. 全國律師月刊, 15(7).
經濟部智慧財產局. (2012). 美國專利訴訟教戰手冊.
熊誦梅. (2008). 不當行使專利權之法律效果及救濟途徑─從美國法上之專利地痞、專利濫用及智慧財產授權準則談起. 全國律師月刊, 12(10).
劉尚志, 王敏銓, 張宇樞, 林明儀, & 賴婷婷. (2012). 美台專利訴訟實戰暨裁判解析: 元照出版.
劉尚志, 陳瑋明, & 賴婷婷. (2011). 合理權利金估算及美國聯邦巡迴上訴法院之判決分析. 專利師(5).
賴柏翰, & 王立達. (2011). 專利權行政撤銷制度之省思與新發展:以美國發明法案之兩段式新制為中心. 全國律師月刊, 15(7).

Acacia Research Coroporation 2012 Annual Report Form 10-K.
Allison, John R., Lemley, Mark A., & Walker, Joshua. (2009). Extreme Value or Trolls on top? The Characteristics of the Most-Litigated Patents. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 158(1).
Allison, John R., Lemley, Mark A., & Walker, Joshua. (2011). Patent Quality and Settlement Among Repeat Patent Litigants. Geogetown Law Journal, 99(3).
Bessen, James E., & Meurer, Michael J. (2012). The Direct Costs from NPE Disputes. Boston Univ. School of Law, Law and Economics Research Paper, 12(34).
Bessen, James, Ford, Jennifer, & Meurer, Michael J. (2011). The Private and Social Costs Of Patent Trolls. Boston University School of Law Working Paper, 11(45).
Casadesus-Masanell, Ramon, & Ricart, Joan Enric. (2009). From Strategy to Business Models and to Tactics. Harvard Business Review.
Chien, Colleen V. (2010). From Arms Race to Marketplace: The Complex Patent Ecosystem and Its Implications for the Patent System. Hastings Law Journal, 62(297).
Chien, Colleen V. (2011). Predicting Patent Litigation. Texas Law Review, 90(2).
Chien, Colleen V. (2013). Reducing Litigation Abuse by Reducing the Government’s Role in the Patent System.
Chien, Colleen V., & Lemley, Mark A. (2012). Patent Holdup, The ITC, and The Public Interest. Cornell Law Review, 98(1).
Diessel, Benjamin H. (2007). Trolling for Trolls: The Pitfalls of the Emerging Market Competition Requirement for Permanent Injunctions in Patent Cases Post-EBAY. Michigan Law Review, 106(305).
Donegan, Chris. (2012). Ten rules for choosing a non-practising entity. Intellectual Asset Management Magazine.
Emma, PG. (2006). Patent claims revisited: examiners and trolls. IEEE MICRO, 26(3).
Ewing, Thomas L. (2011). Indirect Exploitation of Intellectual Property Rights By Corporations and Investors. 4 Hastings Sci. & Tech. L. J.
Ewing, Thomas L. (2011). Practical Considerations in the Indirect Deployment of Intellectual Property Rights By Corporations and Investors. 4 Hastings Sci. & Tech. L. J.
Ewing, Tom, & Feldman, Robin. (2012). The Giants Among Us. Stanford Technology Law Review.
Fischer, Timo, & Henkel, Joachim. (2012). Patent trolls on markets for technology - An empirical analysis of NPEs'' patent acquisitions. Research Policy, 41(9).
Fact Sheet: White House Task Force on High-Tech Patent Issues
Fisman, Ray. (2012). The Troll Toll. Retrieved May 25, 2013
Geradin, Damien, Layne-Farrar, Anne, & Padilla, A. Jorge. (2012). Elves or Trolls? The role of nonpracticing patent owners in the innovation economy. Industrial and Corporate Chang, 21(1).
Hagiu, Andrei, & Yoffie, David B. (2013). The New Patent Intermediaries: Platforms, Defensive Aggregators, and Super-Aggregators. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 27(1).
Hagiu, Andrei, Yoffie, David, & Wagonfeld, Alison Berkley. (2011). Intellectual Ventures. Harvard Business Review.
Henkel, Joachim, & Reitzig, Markus G. (2007). Patent Trolls, the Sustainability of ‘Locking-in-to-Extort’ Strategies, and Implications for Innovating Firms.
Henkel, Joachim, & Reitzig, Markus. (2010). Patent Trolls, the Sustainability of ‘Locking-in-to-extort’ Strategies, and Implications for Innovating Firms. RIPE Research Network Intellectual Property Economics.
Johnson, Mark W., Christensen, Clayton M., & Kagermann, Henning. (2008). Reinventing Your Business Model. Harvard Business Review.
JP Morgan.(2011). North America Equity Research, Acacia Research Corporation.
Kelly, Daniel B. (2011). Strategic Spillovers. Coblumbia Law Review, 111(8).
Landers, Amy L. (2006). Liquid Patents. Denver University Law Review, 84(1).
Lim, Lily, & Craven, Sarah E. (2009). Injunctions Enjoined; Remedies Restructured. Santa Clara Computer & High Tech.
Magliocca, Gerard N. (2007). Blackberries and Barnyards: PatentA Trolls and The Perils of Innovation. Notre Dame Law Review.
Magretta, Joan. (2002). Why Business Models Matter. Harvard Business Review.
Mello, J.P. (2006). Technology Licensing And Patent Trolls. B.U. J. SCI. & Tech. L., 12(2).
Morrisa, Michael, Schindehutteb, Minet, & Allenc, Jeffrey. (2005). The entrepreneur’s business model: toward a unified perspective. Journal of Business Research(58).
Myhrvold, Nathan. (2010). Funding Eureka. Harvard Business Review.
Page, Nigel. (2009). IV shifts gear. Intellectual Asset Management Magazine(36).
Penin, Julien. (2012). Strategic uses of patents in markets for technology: A story of fabless firms, brokers and trolls. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organazation, 84(2).
Pohlmann, Tim, & Opitz, Marieke. (2013). Typology of the patent troll business. R & D Management, 43(2).
Quinn, Gene. (2010). Mother of all Patent Trolls, Acacia Research, Gets More Funding.
Reitzig, Markus, Henkel, Joachim, & Heath, Christopher. (2007). On sharks, trolls, and their patent prey- Unrealistic damage awards and firms'' strategies of "being infringed". Research Policy, 36(1).
Risch, Michael. (2012). Patent Troll Myths. Seton Hall Law Review, 42(2).
Shapiro, Carl. (2010). Injunctions, Hold-Up, and Patent Royalties. American Law and Economics Review.
Shrestha, Sannu K. (2010). Trolls or Market-Maker? An empirical analysis of nonpracticing entities. Columbia Law Review, 110(114).
Taras M. Czebiniak.(2011). WhenCongress Gives Two Hats, Which Do You Wear?
Choosing Between Domestic Industry Protection andIP Enforcement in § 337
Investigations. 26 Berkeley Tech. L.J. 93, 93–94
Teece, David J. (2010). Business Models, Business Strategy and Innovation. Long Range Planning(43).
Tucker, Catherine. (2011). Patent Trolls and Technology Diffusion.
Tucker, Catherine. (2013). Patent Trolls and Technology Diffusion. TILEC Discussion Paper.
Zaretzki, Lew. (2008). Lew Zaretzki, Rising Prices and Changing Strategies. Intell. Asset Mgmt.
Zott, Christoph, Amit, Raphael, & Massa, Lorenzo. (2011). The Business Model: Recent Developments and Future Research. Journal of Management, 37(4).

QRCODE
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top