五、 後續研究方向
5.2 可能之進一步研究方法
從前述的計量分析研究結果，我們可以得到部份初步的結論，已如前揭；惟這 樣的結果仍有進一步加強的空間，特別是就如何能夠改善陪審團就故意侵權法律標準 改變的麻木，所可能採用的各種解決方案，若能以更進一步的實證研究方法，達到更 深入的結論，對於法律實務操作將更有參考價值。
首先隨著採納 Seagate 案之法律標準後的時間不斷延長，馬上能夠讓本研究的計 量分析結果更加堅實有說服力的，即擴大計量分析的樣本區間。由於截至本研究最近 的取樣區間結束點為止（2009 年 8 月 20 日），距 Seagate 案的 CAFC 判決時間點
（2007 年 8 月 20 日）也不過才二年的時間，而於此間做出專利故意侵權決定的案件，
除去一造缺度判決的情形，總共也才 41 件，其中僅 21 件有陪審團做出決定。以這樣
167 See DURHAM, supra note 114, at 157-58.
168 Heuser, supra note 146, at 39.
的絕對數量所做出的統計結果，確實有讓人覺得基數不足，難以反映足夠一般化
（generalized）的情形。這樣的缺憾，隨著時間延長而可用的案件數量增加，將能夠得 到解決。舉例來說，如果能夠以 Seagate 案判決時間點前後更多年度的區間來進行計量 分析，取得大約前後各 100 個以上做出專利故意侵權案件的資訊，則這樣的計量分析 結果將更為客觀。
再者，隨著計量區間之擴大及統計樣本案件數量的增加，可以嚐試的是進一步 區分不同地域之法院（包括法官及陪審團）在適用同樣新的故意侵權法律標準時，是 否會導出不同結果。舉例來說，傳統上的刻板印象是東德州聯邦地院（Eastern District of Texas）的法官及陪審團（特別是陪審團）所做之決定會特別有利於專利權人，而北 加州聯邦地院（Northern District of California）的法官及陪審團則較有機會在專利案件 中採取中立的態度；則針對這兩個專利訴訟的主要戰場進行個別的計量分析，將對實 務界有許多參考價值。有更甚者，如果樣本案件數量足夠的話，甚至可以針對美國全 境內所有法院進行院別（by district）或巡迴法院別（by circuit）之計量分析。
同樣是取樣空間的問題，如前所述，由於使用 Westlaw 資料庫進行搜尋，存在 有無法找到陪審團已做出其決定（verdict）但是於法官下達最終判決之前兩造雙方即已 和解的案件，故目前本研究中使用 Westlaw 資料庫所搜尋出來的案件結果，將仍存在 為數不明的黑數。當然我們可以合理假設這樣的情形並不多見而不致影響計量分析的 準確性，但是若有辦法能夠取得更完整的案件資訊以將此黑數補齊，即可將此一不確 定性消除。要達到此一目標，則需採取 Kimberly Moore 教授的資料蒐集方式，即向 Administrative Office of the United State Courts 取得完整的聯邦地方法院終結案件原始歸 檔資料，惟如前所述，此一途徑並非目前所能採用。
至於前述的幾種可能解決方案，究竟其是否真的如表面上看來能夠在某種程度 上達到協助陪審團更細緻地區別 Seagate 案之後較高的故意侵權法律標準，以減少因陪 審團誤判而導致對被告之不利益，在法院實際上採用其中任何一種做法而致產生有實 際上的判決結果，得以作為進一步實證研究之依據之前，我們可以採取的一種研究取 徑，即諸如問卷調查或深度訪談等質性研究方式。透過與法律學術界及法律實務界中 對專利訴訟實務學有專精的從業人員，如公司法務、專利律師、法官、學者教授等進 行互動式的對談，應能夠對於上述諸如 1)增加由法官進行故意侵權判決的機會、2)特 別裁決表格、3)審判分割等可能解決方案是否果真能夠解決問題，其成本為何以及有 可能造成的額外問題，有更深入的理解；而這些專業人士也許也能夠另外提供其他我 們還未曾想到過的其他方案。
最後，受限於截至目前為止 CAFC 判決數量有限之故，本研究對於上訴法院就 新的「客觀輕忽」故意侵權判斷標準，究竟除了認為法律意見書佔有重要指標性意義 之外，還相信何種事實模式始落入（或不落入）故意侵權的範疇，未能有足夠的研究 樣本數來進行分析；再者，CAFC 針對新的客觀輕忽標準，除了在 Seagate 案本身當中 闡明了客觀及主觀要件在內的兩階段測試之外，仍尚未對於何謂「客觀輕忽」及其更 詳細的構成要件，有任何進一步的定義。則若要能夠對 Seagate 案後新的客觀輕忽故意 侵權法律標準有更清楚的認識，亦須待隨著時間經過，CAFC 於此法律爭點上表達更 多意見之後，始得更多教導。
六、 結 論
自從 2007 年 8 月 20 日聯邦巡迴上訴法院的 In re Seagate 判決改變了專利故意侵 權之法律標準以來，法律實務界咸認為欲證明專利故意侵權的門檻已顯著提高，而在 經過本研究的計量分析之後，其結果發現雖然就所有計量樣本整體來看發生故意侵權 的比例確實降低，但是這樣的比例變化實則由法官對於該標準變化的顯著反應而生；
反觀陪審團對於故意侵權的判斷，其比例不降反升，而從文本分析中也有發現陪審團 的決議不見得能夠反映 CAFC 一般認為並不構成客觀輕忽之事實情狀，而仍然做出有 故意侵權之判斷；則實務界後續對於訴訟操作及制度設計應將注意力放在如何提升陪 審團審判結果對於法律標準變化的敏感度，以避免陪審團系統性的錯誤判斷所導致的 訴訟成本增加及被告不利益。在實務上專利故意侵權的風險管理方面，經過對於 CAFC 在 Seagate 案之後之判斷的分析，本文達到取得法律意見書已成為避免專利故意 侵 權 最 重 要 的 因 素 ， 因 此 法 律 意 見 書 的 重 要 性 ， 在 Seagate 案 之 後 不 減 反 增 。
參 考 文 獻 英文書藉
[1] KIMBERLY A.MOORE ET AL.,PATENT LITIGATION AND STRATEGY (2d ed. 2003).
[2] DONALD S.CHISUM ET AL.,PRINCIPLES OF PATENT LAW –CASES AND MATERIALS (2d ed.
2001).
[3]ALAN L.DURHAM,PATENT LAW ESSENTIALS –ACONCISE GUIDE (1999).
英文期刊
[1] Frank M. Washko, Should Ethics Play a Special Role in Patent Law? 19 Geo. J. Legal Ethics 1027 (2006).
[2] Ryan Crockett, Balancing Burdens for Accused Infringers: How In re Seagate Got It Right, 58 DePaul Law. 1047 (2009).
[3] Scott Bloebaum, Past the Tipping Point: Reforming the Role of Willfulness in the Federal Circuit’s Doctrine of Enhanced Damages for Patent Infringement, 9 N.C. J. L. & Tech. 139 (2007).
[4] Vera M. Elson et al., The Waiver of Attorney-Client Privilege & Use of Non-Liability Opinions After In re Seagate, 9 Sedona Conf. J. 33 (2008).
[5] Dov Greenbaum, In re Seagate: Did it Really Fix the Waiver Issue? A Short Review and Analysis of Waiver Resulting from the Use of a Counsel’s Opinion Letter as a Defense to Willful Infringement, 12 Marq. Intell. Prop. L. Rev. 155 (2008).
[6] Andrew Cheslock, Rampant Confusion: Waiver of Attorney-Client Privilege and Work-Product Doctrine Immunity When Asserting an Advice of Counsel Defense to Willful Infringement, 10 Tul. J. Tech. & Intell. Prop. 111 (2007).
[7] Kristy Joi Downing, The Implications of In re Seagate – Redefining Willful Infringement and Waiver of Attorney Work Product, 12 Intell. Prop. L. Bull. 19 (2007).
[8] Christopher Ryan Lanks, In re Seagate: Effects and Future Development of Willful Patent Infringement, 111 W. Va. L. Rev. 607 (2009).
[9] Charles S. Barquist, The Impact of Recent Federal Circuit Decisions on Strategies for Defending Claims of Willful Infringement: Opinion Letters, Representation Issues and the Scope of the Waiver of Privilege, 910 PLI/Pat 1087 (2007).
[10] Justin P. Huddleson, Objectively Reckless: A Semi-Empirical Evaluation of In re Seagate, 15 B.U. J. Sci. & Tech. L. 102 (2009).
[11] James Juo, A Matter of Opinion – A Competent Patent Opinion Can Provide an Effective Defense against a Charge of Willful Infringement, 32-AUG L.A. Law. 36 (2009).
[12] John N. Maher et al., Closing the Willful Infringement Floodgates: the Effects of In re Seagate Both Inside and Outside the Generic Pharmaceutical Litigation Arena, 18 DePaul J.
Art, Tech. & Intell. Prop. L. 255 (2008).
[13] Daniel P. Sullivan, Must Jury Reach a Verdict? The Constitutionality of Eliminating Juries in Patent Trials by Creating an Article I Tribunal, 7 J. Marshall Rev. Intell. Prop. L.
754 (2008).
[14] Kimberly Moore, Judges, Juries, and Patent Cases – An Empirical Peek Inside the Black Box, 99 Mich. L. Rev. 365 (2000).
[15] Kimberly Moore, Empirical Statistics on Willful Patent Infringement, 14 Fed. Circuit B.J.
227 (2004).
[16] Justin McCarthy, In re Seagate: One Step Closer to a Rational Doctrine, 10 Minn. J.L.
Sci. & Tech. 355 (2009).
[17] Danny Prati, In re Seagate Technology LLC: A Clean Slate for Willfulness, 23 Berkeley Tech. L.J. 47 (2008).
[18] Christopher C. Bolten, In re Seagate Tech., L.L.C.: Is the Objective Recklessness Standard a Practical Change? 49 Jurimetrics J. 73 (2008).
[19] Peter E. Heuser et al., If You’re Going to Do It, Do It Right, 69-APR Or. St. B. Bull. 38 (2009).
[20] Brian Ferguson, Seagate Equals Sea Change: the Federal Circuit Establishes a New Test for Proving Willful Infringement and Preserves the Sanctity of the Attorney-Client Privilege, 24 Santa Clara Computer & High Tech. L.J. 167 (2007).
[21] B.D. Daniel, The Right of Trial by Jury in Patent Infringement Cases, 28 Rev. Litig. 735 (2009).
附 錄 一
Pre-Seagate 地方法院案件列表
Serial
No. Case Name Date of
Document Docket No. Judicial District
Proceeding for Willfulness
Post-Trial Proceeding for
Willfulness
1
Asyst Technologies, Inc.
v. Empak, Inc. Judgment of
No Willful Infringement
N/A
2
Black &Decker Inc. v. Robert
Bosch Tool Corporation
Innogenetics N.V.
v. Abbott
No Willful Infringement
4 IMX, Inc. v.
Lendingtree, LLC
Jan. 10, 2007
No. CIV.
03-1067-SLR
D. Delaware
Jury Trial of
Marathon Labels, Inc.
No Willful Infringement
6
Cequent Trailer Products, Inc. v.
Intradin (Shanghai) Machinery Co.
Ltd.
Feb. 7, 2007 No.
1:05-CV-2566 N.D. Ohio
Bench Trial of Willful Infringement
N/A
7
Novozymes A/S v.
Genencor International, Inc.
Feb. 16, 2007
No. CIV A
05-160-KAJ D. Delaware
Bench Trial of Willful Infringement
N/A
8
Floe Internaitonal, Inc. v. Newmans' Judgment of
No Willful Infringement Judgment of
Willful Infringement
N/A
12
Lucent Technologies Inc.
v. Gateway, Inc.
Bench Trial of No Willful Infringement
Civil Action No. 04-3925
E.D.
Pennsylvania
Jury Trial of No Willful Infringement
N/A
14 Muniauction, Inc.
v. Thomson Corp.
July 31, 2007
Civil Action No. 01-1003
Sundance, Inc. v.
Demonte Fabricating, Ltd.
Aug. 1, 2007
No.
02-73543 E.D. Michigan
Jury Trial of Willful Infringement
No Willful Infringement
16 Broadcom Corp. v.
Qualcomm, Inc.
Aug. 10, No Willful Infringement
N/A
18
Ball Aerosol and Specialty Containter, Inc. v.
Limited Brands, Inc. Judgment of
Willful Infringement
N/A
19
U.S. Philips Corporation v.
KXD Technology, Inc. Judgment of
Willful Infringement
N/A
20
Baden Sports, Inc.
v. Kabushiki Kaisha Molten
Sept. 25, Technologies, Inc.
v. Cat Contracting, Inc.
Sept. 26, 2007
Civil Action No.
H-90-1690
S.D. Texas
Bench Trial of No Willful Infringement Corporation v.
Business Object Data Integration,
Inc.
Martek Bioscienes Corporation v.
Nutrinova Inc.
Oct. 30, 2007
Civil Action No. 03-896
GMS
D. Delaware
Jury Trial of Willful Infringement
Willful Infringement
25
Acumed LLC v.
Stryker Corporation
Nov. 20, 2007
No.
04-CV-513-BR D. Oregon
Jury Trial of Willful Infringement
N/A
26
Sklo Podebrady v.
Euro Expo 3000, Inc.
Nov. 21, 2007
Civil No.
06-3829 ADM/JSM
D. Minnesota
Default Judgment of
Willful Infringement
N/A
27
Forest Laboratories, Inc.
v. Ivax Pharmaceuticals,
Inc.
Feb. 26, 2008
Civil Action No.
03-891-JJF
D. Delaware
Summary Judgment of
No Willful Infringement
N/A
附 錄 二
Post-Seagate 地方法院案件列表
Serial
No. Case Name Date of
Document Docket No. Judicial District Technologies, Inc.
v. Waters Corporation
Aug. 31, 2007
Civil Action Nos.
Bench Trial of No Willful
Infringement
N/A
2
VNUS Medical Technologies, Inc.
v. Diomed Holdings, Inc.
Oct. 24, 2007
No.
C-05-2972 MMC N.D. California
Summary Judgment of
No Willful Infringement
N/A
3 TGIP, Inc. v.
AT&T Corp.
Oct. 29, 2007
Civil Action No.
No Willful Infringement
4
Rhino Associates, L.P. v. Berg Manufacturing and
Sales Corporation
Nov. 14, 2007
Civil Action No. 1:04-CV-1611
M.D.
Pennsylvania
Default Judgment of
No Willful Infringement
N/A
5
Franklin electric Co., Inc. v. Dover
Corporation
Nov. 15, 2007
No.
05-C-598-S W.D. Wisconsin
Summary Judgment of
No Willful Infringement
N/A
6
Abbott Laboratories v.
Sandoz, Inc.
Dec. 4, 2007
No. 05 C
5373 N.D. Illinois
Summary Judgment of
No Willful Infringement
N/A
7
Trading Technologies International, Inc.
v. eSpeed, Inc.
No Willful Infringement
8 Resqnet.com, Inc.
v. Lansa, Inc. Feb. 1, 2008 No. 01 Civ.
3578(RWS) S.D. New York
Bench Trial of No Willful
Infringement
N/A
9
Veritas Operating Corporation v.
Microsoft Judgment of
No Willful Infringement
N/A
10
Kleen-Tex Industries, Inc. v.
Mountville Mills, Inc.
Mar. 3, 2008
Civil Case No. 3:03-CV-093-JTC
N.D. Georgia
Bench Trial of No Willful
Infringement
N/A
11
Ball Aerosol and specialty Container, Inc. v.
Limited Brands, Inc. Judgment of
Willful Infringement
N/A
12
Church & Dwight Co., Inc. v. Abbott
Mannatech, Inc. v.
Glycoproducts International, Inc.
July 9, 2008
No.
Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc. v.
W.L. Gore &
Associates, Inc.
July 29,
Trueposition Inc.
v. Andrew Corporation
July 31, 2008
Civ. No.
05-747-SLR D. Delaware
Jury Trial of
Elan Corporation v. Andrx
S.D. Florida
Bench Trial of Willful Infringement
N/A
17
Northbrook Digital Corporation v.
Browster, Inc.
Aug. 26, 2008
Civil No.
06-4206 D. Minnesota
Summary Judgment of
No Willful Infringement
Civil Action No.
05-cv- 00086-RPM-MJW
D. Colorado
Jury Trial of International Inc.
v. Universal Avionics Systems
Corp.
Nov. 12, 2008
C.A. No.
02-359-MPT D. Delaware
Summary Judgment of
No Willful Infringement
N/A
20
Smith & Nephew, Inc. v. Arthrex,
Eastman Kodak Company v.
Agfa-Gevaert N.V.
Dec. 4, 2008
No.
02-CV-6564T W.D. New York
Bench Trial of No Willful
Civil Action No.
07-CV-00174 (DMC)
D. New Jersey
Summary Judgment of
No Willful Infringement
Based upon Hatch-Waxman Act
N/A
23
Funai Electric Company, Ltd. v.
Daewoo electronics Corp.
Jan. 5, 2009 No.
C-04-01380 JCS N.D. California
Jury Trial of
U.S. Philips Corporation v.
Iwasaki Electric Company, Ltd.
Jan. 13, 2009
No. 03 Civ.
0172(PKC) S.D. New York
Bench Trial of No Willful
Infringement
N/A
25
Joyal Products, Inc. v. Johnson electric North America, Inc.
Feb. 27, 2009
Civil Action No. 04-5172
(JAP)
D. New Jersey
Defendant Consented to
Willful Infringement
N/A
26 Krippelz v. Ford Motor Company
Mar. 25, 2009
No. 98 C
2361 N.D. Illinois
Bench Trial of Willful Infringement
N/A
27
Kowalski v.
Mommy Gina Tuna Resources
Mar. 30,
Anchor Wall Systems v.
Rockwood Retaining Walls,
Inc.
D. Minnesota
Jury Trial of No Willful Infringement
N/A
29
Mass Engineered Design, Inc. v.
Ergotron, Inc.
Apr. 17,
Ergotron, Inc. v.
Mass Engineered Design, Inc.
Apr. 17, Industries, Inc. v.
Bridgeport Fittings, Inc.
May 8, 2009
Civil Action No. 3:06-CV-1105
M.D.
Pennsylvania
Summary Judgment of
No Infringement
N/A
32
Procter & Gamble Company v.
McNeil-PPC, Inc.
May 12, 2009
No.
08-cv-251-bbc W.D. Wisconsin
Summary Judgment of
No Willful Infringement
N/A
33
Siemens Medical Solutions USA,
Siemens Medical Solutions USA,