臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

　　美國法上有多種救濟方式，其中來自衡平法、歷史淵源悠久之禁制令（injunction）制度，扮演重要角色。禁制令不僅頻繁見於司法實務，近年相關爭議亦足夠重大，讓美國聯邦最高法院曾數度表示見解。本文以美國聯邦法暫時禁制令（interlocutory injunction）為中心，分別探究其程序、實體審查標準，及適用上界限，希望能補充此領域中比較法研究之欠缺。
　　暫時禁制令又包含初步禁制令（preliminary injunction）及緊急限制令（temporary restriction order）兩種子類型。程序規範方面，兩者在效力期間、事前通知之必要性及救濟可能性等等，皆有差別。實體審查標準上，藉由分析聯邦最高法院近期重要案例以及後續聯邦巡迴上訴法院之解讀，可知現今美國暫時禁制令之實體審查標準，並不存在一體適用之共通見解。並且，此種異中求同之現狀，短期內似乎不會產生變化。
　　至於暫時禁制令之適用界限，從反禁制令法之制定，到全國禁制令之興起，顯示聯邦司法實務愈來愈常透過禁制令干預行政權之施政。縱使法院決定大多僅有暫時性效力，此種情形毋寧仍挑戰了傳統充分原則，即視禁制令屬例外救濟之觀念；甚至亦有違反權力分立原則之虞。文末並將綜合研究所得，省思美國暫時禁制令制度之運作，能給予我國暫時權利保護法制哪些啟示。

Injunctions play an important role among judicial equitable remedies in American law. Nowadays, injunctions are frequently used in the federal courts, while the U. S. Supreme Court has also addressed relevant issues several times. This thesis explores the interlocutory injunction, including its procedures, standards and limitations.
Interlocutory injunction can be divided into two types: preliminary injunction and temporary restriction order, which are different in many ways. For instance, the orders’ duration, the necessity of giving notice in advance, the possibility of appeal, and so forth. After analyzing Supreme Courts’ recent cases and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuits’ interpretations, the thesis finds out that a uniform federal standard is still nonexistent. Moreover, the situation doesn’t seem to change in the near future.
Regarding the limitations on interlocutory injunctions, from Anti-Injunction Acts to the rise of nationwide injunctions, indicates that federal courts are more likely to issue injunctions to invalidate federal government policies. Such circumstances might conflict with the traditional adequacy doctrine, or even separation of powers principles. Finally, this thesis reviews how interlocutory injunctions are utilized in the federal courts, attempting to shed some light on temporary right protection mechanism in Taiwan.

第一章　緒論 1
第一節 研究動機與目的 1
第二節 研究範圍與架構 4
第二章　暫時禁制令制度概說 6
第一節 暫時禁制令之源起 6
第二節 初步禁制令 13
第三節 緊急限制令 31
第四節 小結 38
第三章　暫時禁制令之實體審查標準 39
第一節 實體審查標準之概念 40
第二節 聯邦最高法院之趨勢 57
第三節 聯邦上訴法院之因應 76
第四節 實體審查標準之再省 91
第四章　對暫時禁制令制度之制衡 100
第一節 本案事先裁判之對應 100
第二節 司法權擴張之防免 104
第三節 小結 147
第五章　結論：美國暫時禁制令於我國之借鏡 149
參考文獻 160

壹、中文
一、專書
王承守（著），鄧穎懋（譯）（2007），《美國專利訴訟攻防策略運用》，臺灣：元照。
王偉霖（2017），《營業秘密法理論與實務》，2版，臺灣：元照。
二、書之篇章
林明昕（2006），〈假處分之本案事先裁判─兼論行政訴訟法第二百九十八條第三項之規範意義〉，收於：《公法學的開拓線─理論、實務與體系之建構》，初版，頁495-530，臺北：元照。
林明昕（2006），〈行政爭訟上停止執行之實體審查標準－以行政訴訟法第一百十六條第二項為中心〉，收於：湯德宗、劉淑範（編），《2005行政管制與行政爭訟》，頁1-39，臺北：新學林。
三、期刊論文
王偉霖（2012），〈論營業秘密案件之定暫時狀態處分－兼評臺灣高等法院九十六年度抗字第一六四一號民事裁定〉，《月旦法學雜誌》，209期，頁245-268。
吳重銘（2007），〈美國專利侵權訴訟中強制處分命令的取得與訴訟策略的思考〉，《政大法學評論》，96期，頁147-187。
沈冠伶（2004），〈我國假處分制度之過去與未來─以定暫時狀態之假處分如何衡平保障兩造當事人之利益為中心〉，《月旦法學雜誌》，109期，頁52-72。
林昱梅（2010），〈行政法院對暫時權利保護之審查模式－兼評中科三期停止執行與停止開發相關裁定〉，《法令月刊》，61卷10期，頁37-55。
范曉玲（2004），〈熱門的台灣專利假處分戰爭〉，《萬國法律》，137期，頁10-16。
許士宦（2004），〈定暫時狀態處分之基本構造〉，《台灣法學雜誌》，頁51-77。
許炳華（2016），〈智慧財產權訴訟核發初步禁制令中「不可回復損害」判準之探討－以美國最近商標權訴訟發展為核心〉，《專利師》，25期，頁111-126。
陳英鈐（2005），〈從有效權利保護論公法上假處分－與最高行政法院的裁定對話〉，《臺大法學論叢》，34卷4期，頁71-128。
湯德宗（2005），〈大法官得否命「暫時停止適用」法律？—真調會條例釋憲案鑑定意見書（一）〉，《月旦法學雜誌》，117期，頁9-23。
馮震宇（2004），〈從美國司法實務看台灣專利案件之假處分救濟〉，《月旦法學雜誌》，109期，頁1-35。
黃昭元（2005），〈真調會條例釋憲案鑑定意見—急速處分部分〉，《月旦法學雜誌》，117期，頁24-36。
黃朝琮（2015），〈董事違反受託義務之事前救濟〉，《法令月刊》，66卷4期，頁115-141。
楊崇森（2010），〈美國民事訴訟制度之特色與對我國之啟示〉，《軍法專刊》，56卷5期，頁1-40。
楊崇森（2011），〈美國司法組織之實際運作及其晚近變革〉，《軍法專刊》，57卷1期，頁56-83。
楊智傑（2012），〈美國智慧財產權訴訟中核發禁制令之審查〉，《智慧財產權月刊》，160期，頁51-100。
葉雪美（2012），〈解析美國侵權訴訟以設計專利請求初步禁制令之審查－以Apple控告 Samsung侵權訴訟為例〉，《智慧財產權月刊》，168期，頁70-147。
鄭中人（2004），〈專利權之行使與定暫時狀態之處分〉，《台灣本土法學雜誌》，58期，頁101-138。
四、學位論文
李超偉（2008），《論專利權侵害之定暫時狀態假處分-以保全之必要性為中心》，私立東海大學法律學系碩士論文。
沈冠伶（1994），《公害制止請求之假處分程序─從程序機能論與紛爭類型審理論之觀點》，國立臺灣大學法律學研究所碩士論文。
徐聖評（2019），《定暫時狀態處分制度於我國實務之運用——以公司經營權爭奪事件為中心》，國立臺灣大學法律研究所碩士論文。
馬鴻驊（2005），《行政訴訟上假處分決定之實體審查標準》，國立中正大學法律學研究所碩士論文。
張哲維（2013），《論定暫時狀態處分於專利侵害救濟中之應用》，國立清華大學科技法律研究所學位論文。
陳彩瑜（2004），《發明專利侵權爭議中定暫時狀態假處分之研究》，國立臺北大學法律專業研究所碩士論文。
陳雅菡（2012），《定暫時狀態分於公司紛爭之研究》，國立臺灣大學法律學研究所碩士論文。
黃宣輔（2008），《從比較法觀點探討我國專利侵權訴訟定暫時狀態假處分之審理─以美國法制為對照》，國立臺灣大學法律學研究所碩士論文。
黃書苑（2007），《定暫時狀態假處分之研究》，國立臺北大學法律學系博士論文。
盧佳德（2007），《專利排他權之研究-以美國專利案件永久禁制令之核發為中心》，國立交通大學科技法律研究所碩士論文。
謝佑鑫（2007），《論處理「專利蟑螂」爭議問題之手段–美國禁制令與我國強制授權之比較》，私立世新大學法律學研究所碩士論文。
五、網路文獻
美國國務院國際資訊局（2004），《美國司法體系概述》，載於：https://bit.ly/38e46eS。
貳、英文
一、書籍
Dobbyn, J. F. (1974). Injunctions in a nutshell. West Pub. Co.
Kerr, W. W. (1871). A treatise on the law and practice of injunctions in equity (Herrick. W. A., Ed.). Little, Brown.
Kovacic-Fleischer, C. S., Love, J. C., Nelson, G.S. & Leavell, R. N. (2011). Equitable remedies, restitution, and damages: Cases and materials. (8th ed.). Thomson/West.
Laycock, D. (2010). Modern American remedies: Case and materials. (4th ed.). Aspen Publishers.
Silberman, L. J., Stein, A. R., & Wolff, T. B. (2013). Civil procedure: Theory and practice. (4th ed.). Wolters Kluwer Law & Business.
Stoll-DeBell, K., Dempsey, N., & Dempsey, B. (2009). Injunctive relief: Temporary restraining orders and preliminary injunctions. American Bar Association.
Thompson, R. S. (2009). Remedies: Damages, equity, and restitution. (4th ed.). LexisNexis Matthew Bender.
Weaver, R. L., Kelly, M. B., & Cardi, W. J. (2005). Remedies. (1st ed.). Thomson/West.
Weaver, R. L., Shoben, E., & Kelly, M. (2007). Principles of remedies law. Thomson/ West.
二、期刊
Amdur, S. E., Hausman, D. (2017). Nationwide injunctions and nationwide harm. Harvard Law Review Forum, 131(1), 49-55.
Barnas, S. S. (2019). Can and should universal injunctions be saved. Vanderbilt Law Review, 72(5), 1675-1716.
Bates, B. M. (2011). Reconciliation after winter: The standard for preliminary injunctions in federal courts. Columbia Law Review, 111(7), 1522-1556.
Berger, G. (2017). Nationwide injunctions against the federal government: a structural approach. New York University Law Review, 92(4), 1068-1106.
Black, S. H. (1984). A New look at preliminary injunctions: Can principles from the past offer any guidelines to decisionmakers in the future. Alabama Law Review, 36(1), 1-50.
Bray, S. L. (2017). Multiple chancellors: Reforming the national injunction. Harvard Law Review, 131(2), 417-482.
Bruhl, A. A. P. (2017). One good plaintiff is not enough. Duke Law Journal, 67(3), 481-556.
Carroll, M. (2017). Aggregation for me, but not for thee: The rise of common claims in non-class litigation. Cardozo Law Review, 36(6), 2017-2084.
Castles, J. W. (1979). Interlocutory injunctions in flux: A plea for uniformity. Business Lawyer (ABA), 34(4), 1359-1374.
Chafee, Z. (1932). Bills of Peace with Multiple Parties. Harvard Law Review, 45(8), 1297-1332.
Clopton, Z. D. (2019). National injunctions and preclusion. Michigan Law Review, 118(1), 1-46.
Crawford, J. S. (2012). Unlikely to succeed: How the second circuit's adherence to the serious questions standard for the granting of preliminary injunctions contradicts Supreme Court precedent and turns an extraordinary remedy into an ordinary one. Oklahoma Law Review, 64(3), 437-468.
Denlow, M. (2003). The motion for a preliminary injunction: Time for a uniform federal standard. Review of Litigation, 22(3), 495-540.
DiSarro, A. (2011). Freeze frame: The Supreme Court's reaffirmation of the substantive principles of preliminary injunctions. Gonzaga Law Review, 47(1), 51-98.
Erickson, M. (2018). Who, what and where: A case for multifactor balancng as a solution to abuse of nationwide injunctions. Northwestern University Law Review, 113(2), 331-369.
Fallon, R. (2000). As-Applied and Facial Challenges and Third-Party Standing. Harvard Law Review, 113(6), 1321-1370
Frost, A. (2018). In defense of nationwide injunctions. New York University Law Review, 93(5), 1065-1119.
Goldstein, J. A. (2010). Equitable balancing in the age of statutes. Virginia Law Review, 96, 485-547.
Griffin, R. (2010). Ligating the contours of constitutionality: Harmonizing equitable principles and constitutional values when considering preliminary injunctive relief. Minnesota Law Review, 94(3), 839-868.
Hammond, R. (1980). Interlocutory injunctions: Time for a new model?. University of Toronto Law Journal, 30(3), 240-282.
Heiny, A. E. (1987). Formulating a theory for preliminary injunctions: American hospital supply corp. v. hospital products ltd.. Iowa Law Review, 72(4), 1157-1170.
Huddleston, K. (2017-2018). Nationwide injunctions: Venue considerations. Yale Law Journal Forum, 127, 242-253.
Kennedy, K. C. (1997). Equitable remedies and principled discretion: The Michigan experience. University of Detroit Mercy Law Review, 74(4), 609-656.
Kroger, J. R. (1998). Supreme court equity, 1789-1835, and the history of American judging. Houston Law Review, 34(5), 1425-1488.
Lanjouw, J. O., & Lerner, J. (2001). Tilting the table - The use of preliminary injunctions. Journal of Law Economics, 44(2 Part 1), 573-603.
Lannetti, D. W. (2015). The Test - or lack thereof - For issuance of Virginia temporary injunctions: The current uncertainty and a recommended approach based on federal preliminary injunction law. University of Richmond Law Review, 50(1), 273-324.
Laycock, D. (1990). Death of the irreparable injury rule. Harvard Law Review, 103(3), 687-771.
Laycock, D. (2008). How remedies became a field: A history. Review of Litigation, 27(2), 161-268.
Lee, T. R. (2001). Preliminary injunctions and the status quo. Washington and Lee Law Review, 58(1), 109-166.
Leubsdorf, J. (1978). The standard for preliminary injunctions. Harvard Law Review, 91(3), 525-566.
Leubsdorf, J. (2007). Preliminary injunctions: In defense of the merits. Fordham Law Review, 76(1), 33-48.
Levin, A. L., & Leeson, S. M. (1984). Issue preclusion against the United States government. Iowa Law Review, 70(1), 113-140.
Lewis, O. H. (1994). Wild card that is the public interest: Putting a new face on the fourth preliminary injunction factor. Texas Law Review, 72(4), 849-892.
Love, J. C. (2013). Teaching preliminary injunctions after winter. Saint Louis University Law Journal, 57(3), 689-712.
Malveaux, S. M. (2017). Class actions, civil rights, and the national injunction. Harvard Law Review Forum, 131(1), 56-64.
Malveaux, S. M. (2017). The Modern Class Action Rule: Its Civil Rights Roots and Relevance Today. University of Kansas Law Review, 66, 325-396.
McTarnaghan, C. (2014). Equity run amuck: The necessary reevaluation of the preliminary injunction standard to reflect modern day legal realities - a comparison of the Massachusetts and Delaware noncompete agreement preliminary injunction standard. Suffolk University Law Review, 47(4), 871-904.
Metzger, E. J.; Friedlander, M. E. (1974). Preliminary injunction: Injury without remedy. Business Lawyer (ABA), 29(3), 913-924.
Moore, M. D. (2018). The preliminary injunction standard: Understanding the public interest factor. Michigan Law Review, 117(5), 939-962.
Morley, M. T. (2016). De facto class actions: Plaintiff- and defendant-oriented injunctions in voting rights, election law, and other constitutional cases. Harvard Journal of Law Public Policy, 39(2), 487-556.
Morley, M. T. (2017). Nationwide injunctions, rule 23(b)(2), and the remedial powers of the lower courts. Boston University Law Review, 97(2), 615-658.
Morley, M. T. (2019). Disaggregating nationwide injunctions. Alabama Law Review, 71(1), 1-66.
Narodick, B. I. (2009). Winter v. national resources defense council: Going into the belly of the whale of preliminary injunctions and environmental law. Boston University Journal of Science & Technology Law, 15(2), 332-348.
Nussbaum, B. J. (1972). Temporary restraining orders and preliminary injunctions - the federal practice. Southwestern Law Journal, 26(2), 265-281.
Palmer, J. R. (2002). Collateral bar and contempt: Challenging a court order after disobeying it. Cornell Law Review, 88(1), 215-256.
Payne, T. (2018). Now is the winter of Ginsburg's dissent. Tennessee Journal of Law and Policy, 13(1), 15-84.
Powers, J. (2014). A status quo bias: Behavioral economics and the federal preliminary injunction standard. Texas Law Review, 92(4), 1027-1052.
Quillen, W. T.; Hanrahan, M. (1993). A short history of the Delaware court of chancery--1792-1992. Delaware Journal of Corporate Law, 18(3), 819-866.
Redish, M. H. (1992). Reassessing the allocation of judicial business between state and federal courts: Federal Jurisdiction and "the martian chronicles." Virginia Law Review, 78(8), 1769-1832.
Shreve, G. R. (1983). Federal injunctions and the public interest. George Washington Law Review, 51(3), 382-419.
Siddique, Z. (2017). Nationwide Injunctions. Columbia Law Review, 117(8), 2095-2150.
Silberman, L. J. (1987). Injunctions by the numbers: Less than the sum of its parts. Chicago-Kent Law Review, 63(2), 279-310.
Slack, M. R. (2012). Separation of powers and second opinions: Protecting the government's role in developing the law by limiting nationwide class actions against the federal government. Review of Litigation, 31(4), 943-996.
Sohoni, M. (2020). The lost history of the "universal" injunction. Harvard Law Review, 133(3), 920–1009.
Thomas, T. A. (2004). The prophylactic remedy: Normative principles and definitional parameters of broad injunctive relief. Buffalo Law Review, 52(2), 301-386.
Trammell, A. M. (2017). Precedent and preclusion. Notre Dame Law Review, 93(2), 565-618.
Trammell, A. M. (2019). Demystifying nationwide injunctions. Texas Law Review, 98(1), 67-120.
Vaughn, L. B. (1989). A need for clarity: Toward a new standard for preliminary injunctions. Oregon Law Review, 68(4), 839-884.
Wasserman, H. M. (2018). Nationwide injunctions are really universal injunctions and they are never appropriate. Lewis Clark Law Review, 22(2), 335-390.
Wasserman, H. M. (2020). Precedent, non-universal injunctions, and judicial departmentalism: A model of constitutional adjudication. Lewis & Clark Law Review, 23(4), 1077-1148.
Weisshaar, R. A. (2012). Hazy shades of winter: Resolving the circuit split over preliminary injunctions. Vanderbilt Law Review, 65(3), 1011-1058.
Wheeler, K. B. (2017). Why there should be a presumption against nationwide preliminary injunctions. North Carolina Law Review, 96(1), 200-226.
Wolf, A. D. (1984). Preliminary injunctions: The varying standards. Western New England Law Review, 7(2), 173-238.
Wolf, A. D. (2013). Preliminary injunction standards in Massachusetts State and federal courts. Western New England Law Review, 35(1), 1-54.