TRIPS在著作權、商標與專利分別設有例外條款，也就是TRIPS第13、17、30條。本文以TRIPS例外條款所喻涵的彈性空間為研究標的，整理WTO爭端解決機制中與TRIPS例外條款相關案件，包括：美國著作權法第110條第5項案、加拿大藥品專利案以及歐盟地理標示案，分析三案件爭端解決報告對於例外條款的解釋方式與範圍，並列出學界對爭端解決小組解釋方式的評論，以及學者對於TRIPS例外條款彈性空間的見解。對應到國內例外條款實施現況時，則以例外條款之一的合理適用為例，分析法院在解釋例外條款時是否也落入與爭端解決小組相同謬誤。
目前學界最主要呼聲在於透過例外條款實施權利義務平衡，達到TRIPS第7條所謂的平衡目的，臺灣智慧財產權相關法典中合理使用條款皆是移植外國立法例而來，對於實踐在地化權利義務平衡有其困難性。本文透過比較法方式，提供外國法合理使用態樣，建議可適度放寬合理使用範圍。
最後，本文提出應重新思考例外條款之定位，不將之侷限於個案中的抗辯事由，並且就例外條款具有彈性空間的本質，本文建議為法院應積極利用裁量空間，並且對智慧財產權作適度限縮。

The exception clauses in TRIPS agreement are Articles 13, 17 and 30, which describe the exception and limitation to copyright, trademark and patent. The present study focus on the flexibility under exception clauses and start with reviewing DSB reports including U.S. Section 110(5) of Copyright Act , Canada-Patent Protection of Pharmaceutical Products and European Communities-Protection of Trademarks and Geographical Indications for Agricultural Products and Foodstuffs. Each section compares the interpretations made by WTO panels with criticisms and speculative recalibrated proposals. This study also discusses the flexibility in Taiwan IP laws from the perspective of fair use. Inspect the interpretations of exception clauses made by our courts are restrained the flexibility as well as DSB reports or not.
As to the most important object of the exception clauses is a balance of rights and obligations, it is also the content in the Article 7 of TRIPS agreement. However, the fair use doctrines in Taiwan IP laws are translated from foreign legal systems. This kind of legislation makes achieving local balance more difficult. By comparative jurisprudence, the study suggests that the fair use doctrines might have more flexible space.
Finally, the study concludes the exception clauses could be defined not only one objection but also one flexibility factor in IP laws. The court shall have a positive attitude to exercise of judicial discretion and try to reasonably limit IP rights.

中文文獻
專書
(1) 王怡蘋，論著作權法第65條第2項與其他各條之關係，著作權合理使用規範之現在與未來，黃銘傑主編，元照出版公司，2011年
(2) 王敏銓，美國法的合理使用，著作權合理使用規範之現在與未來，黃銘傑主編，元照出版公司，2011年
(3) 王澤鑑，民法學說與判例研究（五），台大法學叢書，1996年
(4) 汪渡村，商標法論，五南圖書出版，2008年
(5) 洪家殷，行政罰，行政法(上)，翁岳生編，2006年第三版，元照出版有限公司
(6) 張懿云、陳錦全，經濟部智慧財產局委託研究報告，【公開上映及公開演出涉及著作權問題之研究】，2006年2月28日
(7) 劉孔中，智慧財產權法制的關鍵革新，元照出版公司，2007年
(8) 蔡惠如，我國著作權法合理使用之挑戰與契機，著作權合理使用規範之現在與未來，黃銘傑主編，元照出版公司，2011年
(9) 闕光威，論著作權法上之合理使用，元照出版公司，2009年
論文
(1) 余賢東，〈商標合理使用－兼論商標不專用制度與商標權濫用〉，逢甲大學財經法律研究所碩士論文，2007年6月
期刊
(1) 王立達，TRIPS協定之例外條款-以概括型例外條款為中心，政大法學評論，2009年107期
(2) 朱岩，民法典一般條款研究，月旦民商法，第7期，2005年3月
(3) 吳從周，台灣民法解釋學之發展現況，月旦民商法，第30期
(4) 許忠信，論著作財產權合理使用之審酌因素，月旦法學雜誌第188期，2011年
(5) 陳昭華，比較廣告在商標法之合理使用，月旦法學教室第123期，2013年
(6) 彭心儀，全球化與多元價值，臺大法學論叢，第36卷第2期，2006年5月
(7) 馮震宇，從TRIPS爭議案件看國際間對地理標示保護，月旦法學雜誌第153期，2008年
(8) 劉孔中，公平法與智慧財產權法的衝突與調和，月旦法學雜誌第104期，2004年1月
(9) 劉孔中、謝銘洋、馮震宇，著作權判決實證研究，月旦法學雜誌第203期，2012年4月
網站
(1) 經濟部國際貿易局網站，http://www.trade.gov.tw/cwto/Pages/Detail.aspx?nodeID=458&pid=311767，最後瀏覽日期：2013年1月10日。
(2) 著作權筆記網站，http://www.copyrightnote.org/crnote/bbs.php?board=4&act=read&id=130，最後瀏覽日期：2013年4月29日。
(3) 經濟部智慧財產局專利業務統計：http://www.tipo.gov.tw/ch/Download_DownloadPage.aspx?path=2614&Language=1&UID=10&ClsID=16&ClsTwoID=24&ClsThreeID=0，最後瀏覽日期：2013年5月10日。
(4) 科技產業資訊室，http://cdnet.stpi.narl.org.tw/techroom/pclass/2011/pclass_11_A056.htm，最後瀏覽日期：2013年6月1日。

英文文獻
Books
(1) C.M. Correa, Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights, 2007: Oxford University Press
(2) Carolyn Deere, The Implementation Game: The TRIPS Agreement and the Global Politics of Intellectual Property Reform in Developing Countries, Oxford Scholarship Online:2009
(3) Dalindyebo Shabalala, United States- Section 110(5) of the US Copyright Act: summary and analysis, in Research Handbook on the Interpretation and Enforcement of Intellectual Property under WTO Rules (Carlos M. Corres eds.),142 (2010)
(4) D. Gervais, The TRIPS Agreement, 3rd.,Par. 2.275,2008: SWEET&MAXWELL
(5) ET. Biadgleng, “The development-balance of the TRIPS agreement and enforcement of intellectual property rights”, in J. Malbon& C.Lawson (eds.), Interpreting and Implementing the TRIPS Agreement, 2008:Edward Elgar
(6) G. Ghidini, Intellectual Property and Competition Law, 2006: Edward Elgar
(7) H.J. R Homere, ‘Intellectual Property, Trade and Development: a View from the United States’, in D.J. Gervais (eds), Intellectual Property, Trade and Development, 2007: Oxford University Press.
(8) Jae Hun Park, ‘ chapter3 Patents and standards in the US and chapter4 Patents and standards in the EU’, in Jae Hun Park, Patents and Industry Standards, 2010: Edward Elgar.
(9) N.P. de Carvalho, The TRIPS Regime of Patent Rights,2nd, 52-53,2005: Kluwer Law International.
(10) P.K. Yu, ‘Intellectual property reforms in China’, in R. Meléndez-Ortiz and P. Roffe (eds), Intellectual Property and Sustainable Development, 2009: Edward Elgar
(11) P. Torremans,’ Substantive law issues in Europe a decade after TRIPs’, in P. Torremans, H. Shan and J. Erauw (eds), Intellectual Property and TRIPS Compliance in China, 2007: Edward Elgar.
(12) R. Ostergard, ‘Economic Growth and Intellectual Property Rights Protection: A Reassessment of the Conventional Wisdom’, in D.J. Gervais (eds), Intellectual Property, Trade and Development, 2007: Oxford University Press.
(13) Robert Burrell, Allison Coleman, Copyright Exceptions: The Digital Impact, 2005: Cambridge University Press.
Periodicals
(1) Annette Kur, Of Oceans, Islands, and Inland Water - How Much Room for Exceptions and Limitations under the Three-Step Test?, 8 Rich. J. Global L. & Bus. 287 (2009)
(2) Bryan Mercurio, Mitali Tyagi, Treaty Interpretation in WTO Dispute Settlemet: the Outstanding Question of the Legality of Local Working Requirements, 19 Minn. J. Int'l L. 275 (2010).
(3) Christophe Geiger, Jonathan Griffiths, Reto M. Hilty, Declaration on a balanced interpretation of the "three-step test" in copyright law, 39 Int'l Rev. Intell. Prop. & Competition L.707 (2008).
(4) Graeme B. Dinwoodie & Rochelle C. Dreyfuss, Desiging a Global Intellecutal Property System Responsive to Change: the WTO, WIPO,and Beyond, 46 Hous. L. Rev. 1187 (2009).
(5) Hanns Ullrich, Expansionist Intellectual Property Protection and Reductionist Competition Rules: A TRIPS Perspective, 7 J. Int'l Econ. L. 401 (2004).
(6) Heller, Michael A.,Eisenberg, Rebecca S.,” Can patents deter innovation? The anticommons in biomedical research.”, 280 Science 698 (1998).
(7) J. Janewa Oseitutu, Value Divergence in Global Intellectual Property Law, 87 Ind. L.J. 1639 (2012).
(8) John Shepard Wiley, Jr, Copyright at the School of Patent, 58 U. Chi. L. Rev. 119 (1991).
(9) Jason Iuliano, Is Legal File Sharing Legal? an Analysis of the Berne Three-Step Test, 16 Va. J.L. & Tech. 464 (2011).
(10) J.H. Reichman, Legal Hybrids between the Patent and Copyright Paradigms, 94 Colum. L. Rev. 2432 (1994).
(11) Joanne K. Box, Trade mark law and the threat to free speech, I.P.Q. 2012, 4, 289(2012).
(12) Kamiel J. Koelman, Fixing the three step test, E.I.P.R. 28(8), 407 (2006).
(13) Liguo Zhang, How IPR policies of telecommunication standard-setting organizations can effectively address the patent ambush problem, Int'l Rev. Intell. Prop. & Competition L, 41(4) 380 (2010).
(14) Lisa P. Ramsey, Increasing First Amendment Scrutiny of Trademark Law, 61 SMU L. Rev. 381 (2008).
(15) Lisa P. Ramsey, Free Speech and International Obligations to Protect Trademarks, 35 Yale J. Int'l L. 405 (2010).
(16) Martin Senftleben, Towards a Horizontal Standard for Limiting Intellectual Property Rights? - WTO Panel Reports Shed Light on the Three-Step Test in Copyright Law and Related Tests in Patent and Trademark Law, 37 Int'l Rev. Intell. Prop. & Competition L. 407 (2006).
(17) Molly Land, Rebalancing TRIPS, 33 Mich. J. Int'l L. 433 (2012).
(18) Maureen E. Boyle, Leavong Room for Research: the Historical Treatment of the Common Law Research Exemption in Congress and the Courts, and Its Relationshp to Biotech Law and Policy, 12 Yale J. L. & Tech. 269 (2010).
(19) Maureen A. O'Rourke, Toward a Doctrine of Fair Use in Patent Law, 100 Colum. L. Rev. 1177 (2000).
(20) Panel Report, Canada-Patent Protection of Pharmaceutical Products, WT/DS114/R.
(21) Panel Report, European Communities-Protection of Trademarks and Geographical Indications for Agricultural Products and Foodstuffs, WT/DS290/R.
(22) Panel Report, U.S. Section 110(5) of Copyright Act, WT/DS160/R.
(23) Peter K. Yu, The Objectives and Principles of the TRIPS Agreement, 46 Hous. L. Rev. 979 (2009).
(24) Petros C. Mavroidis, No Outsourcing of Law? WTO Law as Practiced by WTO Courts, 102 Am. J. Int'l L. 421 (2008).
(25) Richard H. Steinberg, Judicial Lawmaking at the WTO: Discursive, Constitutional, and Political Constrains, 98 Am. J. Int'l L. 247 (2004).
(26) Rochelle C. Dreyfuss, The Role of India, China, Brazil and Other Emerging Economies in Establishing Access Norms for Intellectual Property and Intellectual Property Lawmaking, 7 (N.Y. Univ. Sch. of Law Pub.Law & Legal Theory Res. Paper Series, Working Paper No. 09-53, 2009).
(27) Sun, Haochen, Fair Use as a Collective User Right , North Carolina Law Review, Vol. 90, No. 125 (2011).
(28) Susy Frankel, Some Consequences of Misinterpreting the TRIPS Agreement, World Intell. Prop.Org. J. 35 (2009).
(29) Simone A. Rose, Semiconductor Chips, Genes, and Stem Cells: New Wine for New Bottles?, 38 Am. J.L. & Med. 113 (2012).
(30) Yoshifumi Fukunaga, Enforcing TRIPS: Challenges of Adjudicating Minimum Standards Agreements, 23 Berkeley Tech. L.J. 867 (2008).
(31) Kenneth D. Crews, The Law of Fair Use and the Illusion of Fair-Use Guidelines, 62 Ohio St. L.J. 599 (2001).
(32) Herman Cohen Jehoram, Restrictions on copyright and their abuse, 27 (10)E.I.P.R.360 (2005).
(33) Paul Goldstein, Berne in the USA, 39(2) Int'l Rev. Intell. Prop. & Competition L. 216 (2008).
(34) Ruth Okediji, Toward an International Fair Use Doctrine, 39 Colum. J. Transnat'l L. 75(2000).
(35) Rochelle Cooper Dreyfuss, Express Genericity: Trademarks as Language in the Pepsi Generation, 65 Notre Dame L. Rev. 397 (1990).
(36) Robert P. Merges, Richard R. Nelson, On the Complex Economics of Patent Scope, 90 Colum. L. Rev. 839 (1990).
(37) J.H. Reichman, Universal Minimum Standards of Intellecutal Property Protection under the TRIPS Component of the WTO Agreement, 29 Int'l Law. 345(1995).
(38) Wendy J. Gordon, Fair Use as Market Failure: a Structual and Economic Analysis of the Betamax Case and Its Predecessors, 82 Colum. L. Rev. 1600(1982).
(39) William McGeveran, Rethinking Trademark Fair Use, 94 Iowa L. Rev. 49(2008).
Websites
(1) WIPO handbook,3, available at http://www.wipo.int/export/sites/www/about-ip/en/iprm/pdf/ch1.pdf, last visited: 2013/3/7
(2) What are intellectual property rights?, available at http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/trips_e/intel1_e.htm. , last visited: 2013/3/7.
(3) WTO,http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/dispu_agreements_index_e.htm?id=A26#selected_agreement, last visited: 2013/3/10.
(4) the World Bank, available at http://data.worldbank.org/about/country-classifications/country-and-lending-groups, last visited: 2012/12/3.
(5) USPTO, available at http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/dcom/olia/confu/confurep.pdf, last visited: 2013/5/19.
(6) U.S. Patent Activity, http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/ac/ido/oeip/taf/h_counts.htm，last visited: 2013/5/2.