第七章 結論
7.2 後續研究方向
分析 Quanta 案之後下級法院適用 Quanta 案判決意見之方式，可觀察到下級法院試圖 擴張解釋 Quanta 案判決意見，以擴大耗盡原則之適用範圍。然而 Quanta 案判決意見對耗 盡原則內涵之發展及影響仍有待更多法院判決的闡釋。此外，就同為限制或規範專利權人 運用專利權之法律原則，專利權耗盡原則、專利濫用以及競爭法間之競合關係實為一值得 後續深入研究探討的課題。
參考文獻
英文書籍
1. HIPPEL, ERIC VON, DEMOCRATIZING INNOVATION (2005).
2. MOY, R. CARL, MOY'S WALKER ON PATENTS (2009).
中文期刊
1. 李森堙，談專利耗盡─一個為專利權利畫界的原則，科技法律透析 (2007 年 8 月)。
2. 沈宗倫，〈由權利耗盡原則論合法專利物之使用界限：以專利物組裝與修復為中心〉，
《台大法學論叢》，第 39 卷第 1 期，頁 287-352（2010 年 3 月）。
英文期刊
1. ANSARI, MEHDI, LG Electronics, Inc. v. Bizcom Electronics, Inc.: Solving the Foundry Problem in the Semiconductor’s Industry, 22 BERKLEY TECH. L.J. 137 (2007).
2. AUSTIN,ERIN JULIA DAIDA, Reconciling the Patent Exhaustion and Conditional Sale Doctrines in Light of Quanta Computer v. LG Electronics, 30 CARDOZO L. REV. 2947 (2009).
3. AUTH,DOROTHY R.,&JASON M. ROCKMAN, Conditional Patent Licensing After the Supreme Court's Decision in Quanta, 2BLOOM.EUR.BUSI.L.REV. 415 (2008).
4. BEARD,JAMES W., The Limits of Licensing Quanta v. LGE and the New Doctrine of Simultaneous Exhaustion, 2008 UCLA J.L. & TECH. 3 (2008).
5. CHAFEE,ZECHARIAH, JR., The Music Goes Round and Round: Equitable Servitudes and Chattels, 69 HARV. L. REV. 1250 (1956).
6. COHEN,JULIE E.,& MARK A. LEMLEY, Patent Scope and Innovation in the Software Industry, 89 CAL. L. REV. 1 (2001).
7. COSTELLO,KYLE M., The State of the Patent Exhaustion Doctrine, Post-Quanta v. LG Electronics, 18 TEX. INTELL. PROP. L.J. 237 (2010).
8. DURFRESNE, ANDREW T., The Exhaustion Doctrine Revived? Assessing the Scope and Possible Effects of the Supreme Court’s Quanta Decision, 24BERKELEY TECH. L.J. 11 (2009).
9. GILLY,RICHARD P.,& MARK S. WALKER, Supreme Court's Quanta Decision Clarifies the Reach of Patent Exhaustion, 20 No. 9INTELL. PROP. & TECH. L.J.1 (2008).
10. GOMULKIEWICZ, ROBERT W., The Federal Circuits Licensing Law Jurisprudence its nature and Influence, 84 WASH. L. REV. 199 (2009).
11. HOUWELING,MOLLY SHAFFER VAN, The New Servitudes, 96 GEO. L.J. 885 (2008).
12. HOVENKAMP, HERBERT, Innovation and the Domain of Competition Policy, 2008 ALA. L.
REV. 103, 111 n.35 (2008).
13. HUNGAR,THOMAS G., Observations Regarding the Supreme Court’s Decision in Quanta Computer, Inc. v. LG Electronics, Inc., 49 IDEA 517(2009).
14. LEAVEN,TOD MICHAEL, The Misinterpretation of the Patent Exhaustion Doctrine and the Transgenic Seed Industry in Light of Quanta v. LG Electronics, 10 N.C. J. L. & TECH. 119 (2008).
15. MCCAMMON, JASON, The Validity of Conditional Sale: Competing Views of Patent Exhaustion in Quanta Computer, Inc. v. LG Electronics, Inc., 128 S. Ct. 2109 (2008), 32 HARV. J.L. & PUB. POL’Y 785, 785 (2009).
16. MORRIS,ROBERT W., “Another Pound of Flesh”: Is There a Conflict Between the Patent Exhaustion Doctrine and Licensing Agreements? , 47 RUTGERS L. REV. 1557 (1995).
17. MOTA, SUE ANN, The Doctrine of Patent Exhaustion: Not Exhausted by the Supreme Court in Quanta Computer v. LG Electronics in 2008, 11 SMU SCI. & TECH. L.REV. 337 (2008).
18. OSBORNE,JOHN W., Justice Breyer's Bicycle and the Ignored Elephant of Patent
Exhaustion: An Avoidable Collision in Quanta v. LGE, 7 J. MARSHALL REV. INTELL.
PROP. L. 245, 254 (2008).
19. PATTERSON,MARK R., Contractual Expansion of the Scope of Patent Infringement Through Field-OF-Use Licensing, 49 WM. & MARY L. REV. 157 (2007).
20. PAUL, JOHN C., KIA L. FREEMAN, & BART A. GERSTENBLITH, The U.S. Supreme Court Clarifies Patent Exhaustion, LES NOUVELLES,VOL. XLIII, No. 3 (2008).
21. PETER CARSTENSEN, Post-sale Restraints via Patent Licensing: A “Seedcentric”
Perspective, 16 FORDHAM INTELL. PROP. MEDIA & ENT. L.J. 1053 (2006).
22. ROBINSON,GLEN O., Personal Property Servitudes, 71U. CHI. L. REV. 1449 (2004).
23. ROVNER,AMBER HATFIELD, Practical Guide to Application of (or Defense Against) Product-Based Infringement Immunities Under the Doctrines of Patent Exhaustion and Implied License, 12 TEX. INTELL. PROP. L.J.227, 238 (2004).
24. SCHLICHER,JOHN W., The New Patent Exhaustion Doctrine of Quanta v. LG: What it means for Patent Owners, Licensees, and Product Customers, 90 J. PAT. & TRADEMARK
OFF. SOC'Y 758 (2008).
25. SIEVERS,JON, Not so Fast My Friend: What the Patent Exhaustion Doctrine Means to the Seed Industry after Quanta v. LG Electronics, 14 DRAKE J. AGRIC. L. 355 (2009).
26. STERN,RICHARD H., Post-Sale Patent Restrictions After Mallinckrodt --An Idea in Search of Definition, 5 ALB. L.J. SCI. & TECH. 1, 15- 19 (1994).
27. STERN,RICHARD H., Quanta Computer Inc v. LGE Elecs Inc-Comments on the
Reaffirmation of the Exhaustion Doctrine in the United States, 2008 EUR. INTEL. PROP. REV. 527 (2008).
28. STERN, RICHARD H., The Unobserved Demise of the Exhaustion Doctrine in US Patent Law, 15 EUR. INTEL. PROP. REV. 460 (1993).
29. VLIET,EMILY VAN, Quanta Patent Exhaustion: The Implications of the Supreme Court’s Decision in Quanta Computer, Inc. v. LG Electronics, Inc. One Year Later, 11 MINN. J. L.
SCI. & TECH. 453 (2010).
30. WATANABE,YUICHI, The Doctrine of Patent Exhaustion: The Impact of Quanta Computer, Inc. v. LG Elecs., Inc., 14 VA. J.L. & TECH. 273 (2009).
31. WEGNER,HAROLD C., Post-Quanta, Post-Sale Patentee Controls, 7 J. MARSHALL REV. INTELL. PROP. L. 6827 (2008).
32. WINSTON,ELIZABETH I., Why Sell What You Can License? Contracting Around Statutory Protection of Intellectual Property, 14 GEO. MASON L. REV. 93 (2006).
其他
1. BOHANNAN,CHRISTINA, IP Misuse as Foreclosure (University of Iowa Legal Studies Research, Paper No. 09-41, 2009), available at http://ssrn.com/abstract=1474407.
2. Brief for the United States as Amicus Curiae Supporting Petitioners, 2007 WL 3353102 (U.S.) (Nov. 13, 2007).
3. EPSTEIN,RICHARD A., F. SCOTT KIEFF, FRED VON LOHMANN, ADAM MOSSOFF, & MARK
LEMLEY, Quanta: Patent Rights in the Supreme Court (Podcast held by The Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy Studies on September 30, 2009), available at
http://www.fed-soc.org/publications/pubid.1655/pub_detail.asp (last visited on April 30, 2010).
4. GHOSH,SHUBHA, The Quandary of Quanta: Thoughts on the Supreme Court Decision One Week Later (Antitrust & Competition Law Blog 2008), available at
http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/antitrustprof_blog/2008/06/the-quandry-of.html (last visited on April 30, 2010).
5. HOLMES,MARK S., Strategies for the New Patent Law Frontier, 979 PLI/Pat 45 (2009).
6. HOVENKAMP, HERBERT J., Post-Sale Restraints and Competitive Harm (University of Iowa Legal Studies Research Paper No. 10-08, 2009), available at
http://ssrn.com/abstract=1540527
7. KIEFF,F. SCOTT, Quanta v. LG Electronics: Frustrating Patent Deals by Taking
Contracting Options Off the Table? (Stanford Law Sch. John M. Olin Program in Law &
Econ., Working Paper No. 366, 2008), available at http://ssrn.com/abstract=1274250.
8. KINSELLA,PETER J., The State of Patent Exhaustion after Quanta, 997 PLI/Pat 335
(2010).
9. LUDWIN,RICHARD,& WILLIAM P. SKLADONY, Survey of Recents Cases Affecting Patent Licensing, 997 PLI/Pat 673 (2010).
10. MCALLISTER,GREG A., Quanta Computer v. LG Electronics: The Supreme Court Applies Its Patent Exhaustion Precedent and Rejects Recent Federal Circuit Modifications of the Doctrine (CASRIP Newsletter - Summer 2008, Volume 15, Issue 2), available at
http://www.law.washington.edu/Casrip/Newsletter/default.aspx?year=2008&article=newsv 15i2QuantaLG (last visited on April 30, 2010).
11. MEECE,TIMOTHY C., Shareholder, Banner & Witcoff, Ltd., U.S. Supreme Court Decides Patent Exhaustion Case in Quanta Computer, Inc. et al. v. LG Electronics, Inc., June 9, 2008 (2008), available at http://
http://www.bannerwitcoff.com/_docs/library/articles/QUanta.pdf (last visited on April 30, 2010).
12. PICHLER,RUFUS, Patent Exhaustion and Implied Licenses: Important Recent Developments in the Wake of Quanta v. LG Electronics (August 2009), available at http://www.mofo.com/patent-exhaustion-and-implied-licenses-important-recent-developm ents-in-the-wake-of-quanta-v-lg-electronics-08-04-2009/ (last visited on April 30, 2010).
13. Transcript of Oral Argument, Quanta Computer, Inc. v. LG Elecs., Inc., 128 S. Ct. 2109 (2008) (No. 06-937).
14. (No. 06-937).
15. VISHNUBHAKAT,SAURABH, Latent Traps in Patent Exhaustion after Quanta (2009), available at http://ssrn.com/author=1282039 (last visited on April 30, 2010).
相關判決
1. ACCO Brands, Inc. v. PC Guardian Anti-Theft Products, Inc., 2008 WL 3915322 (N.D.
Cal. Aug. 21, 2008).
2. Adams v. Burke, 84 U.S. 453 (1873).
3. Aro Mfg. Co. v. Convertible Top Replacement Co., 377 U.S. 476 (1964).
4. B. Braun Medical v. Abbott Laboratories, 124 F.3d 1419 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
5. Bandag v. Al Bolser's Tire Stores, 750 F.2d 903 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
6. Bauer & Cie v. O’Donnell, 229 U.S. 1 (1913).
7. Bloomer v. McQuewan, 55 U.S. (14 How.) 539 (1852).
8. Bloomer v. Millinger, 68 U.S. (1 Wall.) 340 (1863).
9. Bobbs-Merrill Co. v. Straus, 210 U.S. 339 (1908).
10. Cyrix Corp. v. Intel Corp., 846 F. Supp. 522 (E.D. Tex. 1994).
11. Dr. Miles Medical Co. v. John D. Park & Sons, 220 U.S. 373 (1911).
12. Ethyl Gasoline Corp. v. United States, 309 U.S. 436, 446 (1940).
13. Fujifilm Corp. v. Benun, 2009 WL 2232523 (D.N.J. July 24, 2009).
14. General Talking Pictures Corp. v. Western Elec. Co., 305 U.S. 124 (1938).
15. Henry v. A.B. Dick, 224 U.S. 1 (1912).
16. Hynix Semiconductor, Inc. v. Rambus, Inc., 2008 WL 4155655 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 5, 2008).
17. Intel Corp. v. ULSI Sys. Tech., Inc., 995 F.2d 1566 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
18. Jazz Photo Corp. v. International Trade Com'n , 264 F.3d 1094 (Fed. Cir. 2001).
19. John D. Park & Sons v. Hartman, 153 F. 24 (6th Cir. 1907).
20. Keeler v. Standard Folding Bed Co., 157 U.S. 659 (1895).
21. LG Elecs., Inc. v. Hitachi, 2009 WL 667232 (N.D. Calif. March 13, 2009).
22. LG Electronics, Inc. v. Asustek Computer, Inc., 248 F.Supp.2d 912 (N.D.Cal.2003).
23. LG Electronics, Inc. v. Asustek Computer, Inc., 65 USPQ2d 1589 (N.D.Cal.2002).
24. LG Electronics, Inc. v. Bizcom Electronics, Inc., 453 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2006).
25. Mallinckrodt, Inc. v. Medipart, Inc., 976 F.2d 700 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
26. Mitchell v. Hawley, 83 U.S. 544 (1873).
27. Monsanto Company v. Scruggs, 2009 WL 536833 (N.D.Miss. 2009).
28. Motion Picture Patents Co. v. Universal Film Mfg. Co., 243 U.S. 502 (1917).
29. Quanta Computer Inc.v LG Electronics Inc., 128 S. Ct. 2109 (2008).
30. Static Control Components, Inc. v. Lexmark International, Inc., 615 F.Supp.2d 575 (2009).
31. Straus v. Victor Talking Machine Co., 243 U.S. 490 (1917).
32. Transcore LP v. Electronic Transaction Consultants Corp., 563 F.3d 1271 (Fed.Cir. 2009).
33. United States v Univis Lens Co., 316 U.S. 241 (1942).
34. United States v. General Elec. Co., 272 U.S. 476 (1926).
35. United States v. Masonite Corp., 316 U.S. 265 (1942).
36. Wang Labs., Inc. v. Mitsubishi Elecs. Am., Inc. 103 F.3d 15711 (Fed. Cir. 1997).