美國專利法第284條特定之金錢賠償計算方式，主要包括「所失利益」(Lost Profits)及「合理權利金」(Reasonable Royalty)兩種類型，並以「合理權利金」為權利人最低應可獲得之賠償金額。合理權利金之適用，通常在於所失利益判斷法不足以證明因果關係與賠償金額時，為了避免權利人因此無從獲得賠償而設計的計算方法，近年來已經成為美國法院專利損害賠償的主要依據。合理權利金之推估，個別因素之適用與權重，視個案的屬性與資料證據而定。其中以既有之授權金、類似之授權，專利品收益、附加價值、侵權利益、產業慣例、專家意見及雙方可以接受的合理價位，為主要之估算基準。
本文透過該15項因素之功能與運用時點介紹，分析其將如何影響合理權利金之高低，進而建議損害賠償金額之訴訟策略，並以案件實例角度觀察，摘選美國聯邦地方法院之東德州、德拉瓦州以及北加州三間法院，於2010與2011兩年間關於專利侵權損害賠償裁判，關於雙方運用Georgia Pacific 15個因素針對案件中損害賠償相關部分之攻防，以及法院採納結果，並選取2010年美國聯邦上訴法院所做出之重要指標性判決，分析當事人於法院如何操作與認定該15項因素，歸納出個案中，以GP 1（既有權利金）、GP2（類似授權）、GP 8（專利品收益）、GP 9（附加價值）、GP 11（侵權利益）、GP13（侵權人貢獻）為實務上較常被提及適用之重要因素，並參酌聯邦巡迴上訴法院2010年重要之判決見解，針對專利侵權訴訟做出以過去類似授權等距事實上可參考之客觀實際因素為合理權利金主張之主力，盡量避免使用GP 6（附隨利益）不當擴張無一定關聯性之附隨產品銷售利益。

Article 284 of the US Patent Law stipulates two methods to measure the damage and compensation of patent infringement, which are lost profit and reasonable royalty, respectively. Reasonable royalty reflects the least amount to compensate the damages and a substitute or alternative while lost profit method encounters difficulties in proving the damage in the dispute. It has become the prime method in US courts to determine the amount of patent damages in recent years. The consideration of reasonable royalty and the contribution of each GP factor depends on the nature and the evidence of each case. There are existing royalties, comparable licenses, the profitability of the patented product, the utility and advantages over old modes, the probative value of the use, the customary in the particular business, .The opinion testimony of qualified experts and the amount that a licensor (such as the patentee) and a licensee (such as the infringer) would have agreed upon……as standards to determine the amount of reasonable royalty
This paper analyzes cases selected from federal courts of Eastern Taxes, Delaware and Northern California between years of 2010 to 2011 regarding patent infringement damages. It concludes that GP 1(existed royalty)、GP 2(license)、GP 8、GP 9、GP 11、GP 13 are the factors often been used and accepted by the court. Moreover, it is found that GP 6 and the entire market value rule should be restricted to avoid the improper extension of unrelated profits.

摘 要 iii
Abstract iv
誌 謝 v
1. 前言 1
1.1 合理權利金適用前提與目的 1
1.2.1解析法 3
1.2.2假設協商法 3
2. 假設性磋商法 4
3. Georgia-Pacific案所建立之GP因素 7
3.1 各項Georgia-Pacific Factors（以下簡稱GP因素）概述 9
3.1.1 GP 1（既有權利金）、GP 2（類似授權）- 參考真實世界授權經驗者 9
3.1.2 GP 3（授權限制）、GP 4（保有獨占地位）、GP 5（兩造商業關係）- 商業策略考量 10
3.1.3 GP 6 （附隨銷售）、GP 7（授權期間）- 專利延伸效用 13
3.1.4 GP 8（專利品收益） 14
3.1.5 GP 13（侵權人貢獻） 15
3.1.6 GP 9（附加價值）、GP 10（發明本質與商品化程度）、GP 11（侵權利益） -專利本身價值 16
3.1.7 GP 12（產業慣例）、GP 14（專家意見）、GP 15（合理價位） 17
3.1.8聯邦證據法下之證據排除： 19
4. 2010、2011年美國專利訴訟實務之聯邦地院見解摘選 21
4.1 東德州聯邦地方法院 21
4.1.1 Personal Audio, LLC v. Apple, Inc.案 21
4.1.2 Bruce N. SAFFARN v. Johnson Johnson案： 23
4.1.3 Mondis Technology Ltd., v. Innolux Corp.案 25
4.2德拉瓦州聯邦地方法院 27
4.2.1 SRI v. Internet Security et al案 27
4.2.2 Solay., S.A v. Honeywell案 28
4.2.3 LG Display Co., Ltd. v. AU Optronics Corp案 29
4.3 北加州聯邦地方法院 30
4.3.1 Elan Microelectronics Corporation, v. Apple, Inc案 30
4.3.2 Moble Storage Technology, Inc., v. Fujitsu Ltd. et al案 33
4.3.3 Oracle America Inc, v. Google案 34
4.3.4 聯邦地方法院裁判之分析結論 36
5 2010、2011年美國專利訴訟實務之聯邦上訴法院見解摘選 37
5.1 Lucent v. Microsoft Corp案 37
5.1.1 針對損賠部分之雙方攻防研析：以Lucent v. Gateway案為例 40
5.2 I4i Limited Partnership v. Microsoft Corp.案 48
5.3 ResQnet.com, Inc. v. Lansa, Inc案 50
5.4 Wordtech Systems, Inc. v. Integrated Networks Solutions, In.c案 51
6 本文總結 52
6.1 GP 因素之適用部分 53
6.2 合理權利金之專利訴訟策略 56
參考文獻 59

中文期刊論文
劉尚志、王俊凱、李友根、陳群顯、陳建宏、王文杰，〈美國、台灣與中國大陸之專利侵權民事損害賠償實證研究〉，《科技法學評論，第6卷第1期》，頁1-74（2009）。
劉尚志、王思穎、王俊凱，〈以合理權利金為專利損害賠償之計算方法：美國法之案例分析〉，收於《98年專利法修法研討會論文集》，頁37-64，經濟部智慧財產局，台北（2009）。
劉尚志、王思穎、王俊凱，〈智慧財產權損害賠償額計算之研究（從美國法之比較觀察）：美國專利損害賠償之計算方法〉，智慧財產法院委託研究計畫，台北（2009）。


英文書籍
CAULEY, F. RICHARD , WINNING THE PATENT DAMAGES CASE, 47(Oxford University Press 2009).
CHISUM, DONALD S., CHISUM ON PATENTS, (1993 & Supp.1997).

GLICK, MARK A. ET AL., INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY DAMAGES: GUIDELINES AND ANALYSIS (2003).

GLADSTONE, JOHN MILLS III ET AL, PATENT LAW FUNDAMENTALS, 178 (Modern Patent Law Precedent 3rd ed.,2004 ).

MOORE, KIMBERLY A., ET AL., PATENT LITIGATION AND STRATEGY, THIRD EDITION (2008).

PARR, RUSSELL L., ET AL., INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY INFRINGEMENT DAMAGES: A LITIGATION SUPPORT HANDBOOK (1999).
PARR, RUSSELL ROYALTY RATES FOR INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY (John Willey & Sons, Inc.2007).
RAZGAITIS, RICHARD VALUATION AND PRICING OF TECHNOLOGY-BASED INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY ( John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 2003).

SUNG, LAWRENCE M., PATENT INFRINGEMENT REMEDIES (2004).

SCHECHTER, ROGER E., ET AL., PRINCIPLES OF PATENT LAW (2004).

THOMAS, JEFFREY T. ET AL., INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW: DAMAGES AND REMEDIES (2004).

SKENYON, JOHN M., ET AL., PATENT DAMAGES LAW AND PRACTICE (2008).
SMITH V. GORDON & . PARR L,RUSSE VALUATION OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY AND INTANGIBLE ASSETS,( Wiley Intellectual Property Series, 3rd ed. 2000).
SLOTTJE, DANIEL JONATHAN, ECONOMIC DAMAGES IN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY: A HANDS-ON GUIDE TO LITIGATION (2006).

WEIL, ROMAN L., ET AL., LITIGATION SERVICES HANDBOOK : THE ROLE OF THE FINANCIAL EXPERT(2008)
WHITE EDWARD P., LICENSING —A STRATEGY FOR PROFITS 105 (KEW Licensing Press 1990).

英文論文
Kobylak, Wesley, Factors To Be Considered In Determining A "Reasonable Royalty" For Purposes Of Calculating Damages For Patent Infringement Under 35 U.S.C.A. § 284, 66 A.L.R. Fed. 186 (Originally published in 1984).

Barnhardt, John J., Revisiting A Reasonable Royalty as A Measure of Damages for Patent Infringement, 86 J. Pat. & Trademark Off. Soc’y 991 (2004).

Bensen, Eric E., et al., Using Apportionment To Rein In The Georgia-Pacific Factor, 9 Colum. Sci. & Tech. L. Rev. 1, 35 (2008).
F. R. Root & F. J. Contractor, Negotiating Compensation in Internal Licensing Agreements, SLAON MANAGEMENT REV. 9-18 (1981).
其他
Kevin Huntt, When The FTC Thinks Like An IP Economist: In The matter of Rambus, INC., available at http://www.econone.com/resource/sections/11/FTC_thinks_like_IP.pdf (last visited June. 30, 2012).