美國專利制度的發展已有數十年的歷史，專利制度為美國帶來技術優勢與累積龐大財富，讓美國在全球市場擁有強大的競爭力。只是體制系統總存在一些待解的問題與爭議，美國專利法的改革案件已開展多年，修法卻遲遲無法通過，其中關於損害賠償的議題在美國司法訴訟與立法各界已爭論多時，晚近司法實務在專利訴訟案，絕大多數採用合理權利金來計算專利侵害之賠償數額，但有些案件卻誤用整體市場價值法則，導致失控的損害賠償數額判決層出不窮，所以美國各界引頸期盼在最近修法能通過調和整體市場價值法則在專利訴訟案中之適用，讓走入偏鋒的不合理訴訟案件回歸常態。
台灣高科技業經常扮演代工的角色，極具零組件加工的經營優勢，相對的，此類型態的企業一旦在美涉及專利侵權訴訟，因為訴訟不確定性高常須負擔相當高的財務風險，影響企業正規經營相當大。因此，本研究特別研究美國專利制度未來之發展走向，以及修法進度，以為台灣科技業在美發展版圖之參考。

The United States patent system has produced extraordinary technological advance in this country over decades. It is the source of enormous wealth. It is the source of enormous power in the global marketplace. But like every system, it has weak points and controversies to be solved. And those are of great concern nowadays. The damages issues have discussed and debated across the practitioners in these patent fields in the United States. For recent years, the reasonable royalties have become the most frequent measure of damages awarded in patent cases overtaking lost profits, and the legislation may inject some balance into the entire market-value rule, cutting back on the recent expansion of the rule. A consistently over-broad application of the entire market-value rule might threaten to chill innovation for those seeking to design, manufacture and sell products, or invest in such endeavors. And some report clearly showed that the damages law was out of control because the courts, were misapplying the law .
For Taiwan high-tech companies, in the majority, are in the business to manufacture, sell or offer to sell the products involved the sub-systems, components. While they get the lawsuit of the patent cases in the United States, the highly uncertainty of the patent litigation would be occurred and the monetary risk will be explored at a high stake to threaten their regular business. It is important to figure out the future development of the damage law in the United States, especially, how the courts apply the entire market value rule in the patent cases.

一、書籍
1. Gordon V. Smith and Russell L. Parr, VALUATION OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY AND INTANGIBLE ASSETS, (2000)
2. Gordon V. Smith and Russell L. Parr, INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY VALUATION, EXPLOITATION, AND INFRINGEMENT DAMAGES (2005)

二、期刊論文
1. 謝銘洋，〈方法專利侵害及損害賠償─最高法院96年度台上字第1710號民事判決評析〉，《法令月刊》，第六十卷，第十一期，2009年11月，

三、學位論文
1. 張容綺 ，〈專利侵害損害賠償制度之檢討與重構--以美國法作為比較基準--〉，世新大學法律學研究所碩士論文，2004 年。
2. 李柏靜，〈論專利侵害之損害賠償計算─從美國、中國大陸與台灣之專利修法談起〉，政治大學法律科際整合研究所碩士論文，2009年。
3. 周漢威，〈論專利侵權損害賠償之範圍及計算-專利權人所失利益之界定〉，銘傳
大學法律學研究所碩士論文，2005年。

四、會議論文集
1. 王銘勇，〈以相當權利金數額為專利損害損害額─日本特許法第102條第3項之研究〉，《2009 全國科技法律研討會論文集》，劉尚志主編，國立交通大學出版。

五、網路資源
1. “Moving Beyond the Rhetoric: Jury Damage Verdicts in Patent Infringement Cases 2005-2007” (available at http://www.innovationalliance.net/files/JURY%20DAMAGE%20VERDICTS%20IN%20PATENT%20INFRINGEMENT%20CASES%5B 1%5D.pdf)(最後瀏覽日：2010/1/22)
2. http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2009/03/patent-reform-2009-damages.html
3. http://www.patentdocs.typepad.com/patent_docs/files/address_by_chief_judge_michel.pdf(最後瀏覽日：2010/1/28)
4. http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s111-515&tab=related (最後瀏覽日：2010/1/22)
5. www.uspto.gov
6. A Closer Look, 2008 Patent Litigation Study: Damages awards, success rates and time-to-trial, PriceWaterhouseCoopers (2008) (available at www.pwc.corn/extweb/pwcpublications.nsf/docid/ebc144cf6220c1e7852574240056f9a2b)

六、 美國案例
1. Lucent v. Gateway & Microsoft (Fed. Cir. 2009,) the opinion of CAFC on 08-1485 decided: September 11, 2009. http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions/08-1485.pdf
2. Fonar Corp. v. General Elec. Co., 　107 F.3d 1543 (Fed. Cir. 1997)
3. Georgia-Pacific Corp. v. U.S. Plywood Corp., 318 F. Supp. 1116 (S.D.N.Y. 1970)
4. Hanson v. Alpine Valley Ski Area, Inc., 718 F.2d 1075 (Fed. Cir. 1983)
5. Lucent Techs., Inc. v. Gateway, Inc., 509 F. Supp. 2d 912 (S.D. Cal. 2007), aff'd on other grounds, 543 F.3d 710 (Fed. Cir. 2008)
6. Panduit Corp. v. Stahlin Bros. Fibre Works, Inc.,575 F.2d 1152 (6th Cir. 1978)
7. Quanta Computer, Inc. v. LG Elecs., Inc.,128 S. Ct. 2109 (2008) 789 F.2d 895 (Fed. Cir. 1986)
8. State Indus., Inc. v. Mor–Flo Indus., Inc., 883 F.2d 1573, 1580 (Fed. Cir. 1989)
9. Rite–Hite v. Kelly Co., 56 F.3d 1538 (Fed. Cir. 1995)
10. Tec Air v. Denso , 192 F.3d 1353 (Fed. Cir. 1999).
11. Juicy Whip v. Orange Bang 382 F.3d 1367(Fed. Cir. 2004).
12. Imonex Service v. Manz-products., 408 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2005)
13. Cornell University v. Hewlett-Packard 609 F.Supp 279 (N.D.N.Y. 2009)