非實施專利實體（Non-practicing entities，簡稱NPEs）所提起的專利訴訟案件數量在美國法院為數眾多且持續成長，每個訴訟案件非短期內能得到判決，而且一件專利訴訟案件基本要動輒百萬美元，龐大的時間與金錢負擔常讓被告無法負擔，為避免不必要的法律資源浪費與對營業公司的傷害，美國在2011年進行專利法改革，於9月16日由歐巴馬總統簽屬了美國發明法（America Invent Act；簡稱AIA），AIA實施後進行的許多制度的改善，如領證後複審（Post-Grant Review；簡稱PGR）、多方複審（Inter Partes Review；簡稱IPR）、涵蓋商業方法專利過渡期複審（Transitional Program for Covered Business Method Patent Review；簡稱CBM）等等，使得驗證專利有效性的程序變得更加快速有效率。
本研究欲探討在AIA實施以後，對NPEs進行訴訟活動有何影響，因此，選擇樣本以行動通訊與裝置類的公司，分成NPEs和營業公司（Practicing entities；簡稱PEs）兩種群組，分別代表實驗組與控制組，使用「差異中的差異法」（Difference-in-Difference, DID）來衡量AIA實施前後，對實驗組造成的政策影響，並針對逐年為原告之機率、原告目的達成機率與訴訟進行天數三個層面來進行研究。

The number of patent litigation cases filed by non-practicing entities (NPEs) is numerous and sustained in the United States courts. Each litigation case cannot be judged in a short period of time, and need to spend basically Million dollars. The litigation need to spend a lot of time and money so that the defendant cannot afford. In order to avoid the unnecessary waste of legal resources and damage to the operating company (or practicing entities, PEs), the United States in 2011 patent law reform, on September 16 by President Obama signed America Invent Act (AIA). After the AIA, it would improve the patent system, such as Post-Grant Review (PGR), Inter Partes Review (IPR), Transitional Program for Covered Business Method Review (CBM), which makes the process of verifying patent validity more efficient and faster.
There will discuss the impact of litigation on NPEs after the AIA. Therefore, this study chooses two groups: NPEs and PEs, which are selected as the type of the patent litigation, mobile communications and devices. The treatment group and the control group used the difference-in-difference (DID) to measure the policy impact on the treatment group by the AIA. Focus on the rate of raising litigation, the goal was reached with the litigation, and the days for litigation.

一、中文文獻
專書
馮震宇，智慧財產權發展趨勢與重要問題研究，元照，2011 年 1 月。
經濟部智慧財產局，美國專利訴訟教戰手冊進階版，2013 年 3 月。

網路資源
1.朱子亮，2016年11月16日，美上訴法院全院法庭將討論AIA專利複審期間修改專利聲請之裁量標準：In re Aqua Products，科技產業資訊室，http://iknow.stpi.narl.org.tw/Post/Read.aspx?PostID=12951，
（最後瀏覽日: 2017年6月7日）
2.徐仰賢，2013年6月13日，美國專利訴訟外之新選項—多方複審程序（IPR）介紹暨實務分析，科技產業資訊室， http://cdnet.stpi.narl.org.tw/techroom/pclass/2013/pclass_13_A185.htm，
（最後瀏覽日: 2017年6月7日）
3.舒安居，2014年8月14日，美國新專利法實施後，被追訴廠商的「逃生」門道解析，科技產業資訊室，http://iknow.stpi.narl.org.tw/post/Read.aspx?PostID=9971，
（最後瀏覽日: 2017年6月7日）
4.馮震宇，2014年5月30日，美國專利救濟制度改革複審救濟程序效益顯現，科技產業資訊室，http://iknow.stpi.narl.org.tw/post/Read.aspx?PostID=9730，
（最後瀏覽日: 2017年6月7日）
5.黃蘭閔，2012年5月2日，美國AIA系列修法：PTAB審理程序修法提案，北美智權報，http://www.naipo.com/Portals/1/web_tw/Knowledge_Center/Laws/US-45.htm，
（最後瀏覽日: 2017年6月7日）
6.黃蘭閔，美國AIA系列修法：USPTO公告First Inventor to File配套細則修法提案，北美智權報，2012年10月2日，http://www.naipo.com/Portals/1/web_tw/Knowledge_Center/Laws/US-64.htm，
（最後瀏覽日: 2017年6月7日）

二、外文文獻
期刊文章
1.Abrams David S. and R. Polk Wagner （2013）, “Poisoning the next apple? The America invents act and individual inventors”, U of Penn, Inst for Law & Econ Research Paper, No. 11-29.
2.Bessen James E., Michael J. Meurer and Jennifer Laurissa Ford（2011）, “The private and social costs of patent trolls”, Boston University School of Law Working Paper ,No. 11-45, pp. 26-35.
3.Bessen James and Michael J. Meurer（2014）, “The direct costs from NPE disputes”, Cornell Law Review, Vol. 99, pp. 387-424.
4.Chien Colleen V.（2012）, “Predicting patent litigation”, Santa Clara Univ. Legal Studies Research Paper, No. 17-11
5.Cohen Lauren , Umit Gurun, and Scott Duke Kominers（2014）, (Revised April 2017.)
“Patent trolls: Evidence from targeted firms”, National Bureau of Economic Research, NBER Working Paper No. 20322.
6.Cremers Katrin（2004）, “Determinants of patent litigation in Germany”, Center for European Economic Research（ZEW）, No. 04-072
7.Feldman Robin, Sara Jeruss, and Joshua Walker（2012）, “The America invents act 500: Effects of patent monetization entities on US litigation”, Duke Law & Technology Review, Vol. 11, Issue 2, pp. 357-389.
8.Fischer Timo and Joachim Henkel（2012）, “Patent trolls on markets for technology – An empirical analysis of NPE’ patent acquisitions”, Research Policy, Vol. 41, Issue 9, pp. 1519-1533.
9.Graham Stuart J.H. and Dietmar Harhoff（2014）, “Separating patent wheat from chaff: Would the US benefit from adopting patent post-grant review?” , Research Policy, Vol. 43, Issue 9, （Nov. 2014）, pp. 1649–1659.
10.Liu Xun（2013）, “Joinder under the AIA: Shifting non-practicing entity patent assertions away from small businesses”, Michigan Telecommunications and Technology Law Review, Vol.19, Issue 2, pp. 489-513.
11.Mazzeo Michael J., Jonathan Hillel1, and Samantha Zyontz （2013）, “Do NPEs Matter? Non-practicing entities and patent litigation outcomes”, Journal of Competition Law & Economics, Vol. 9, Issue 4, pp. 879-904.
12.Merges Robert P.（2012）, “Priority and novelty under the AIA”, UC Berkeley Public Law Research Paper, No. 2130209.
13.Reitzig Markus, Joachim Henkel, and Christopher Heath（2007）, “On sharks, trolls, and their patent prey—Unrealistic damage awards and firms’ strategies of “being infringed” ” , Research policy, Vol. 36, Issue 1, pp. 134-154
14.Shrestha Sannu K.（2010）, “Trolls or market-makers? An empirical analysis of non-practicing entities”, Columbia Law Review, Vol. 110, No.1, pp. 114-160
15.Schwartz David L. and Jay P. Kesan（2014）, “Analyzing the role of non-practicing entities in the patent system”, Cornell Law Review, Vol.99, Issue 2, pp. 425-456.
 
研究報告
1.PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, 2013 Patent Litigation Study （2013）
2.RPX Corporation, 2012 NPE Activity Report （2012）
3.RPX Corporation, 2013 NPE Litigation Report （2013）
4.RPX Corporation, 2014 NPE Litigation Report （2014）
5.RPX Corporation, 2015 NPE Activity Highlights （2015）

三、網路資源
1.USPTO（2017） USPTO Fee Schedule,
https://www.uspto.gov/learning-and-resources/fees-and-payment/uspto-fee-schedule ,（last visited June 7, 2017）
2.Donald S. Chisum（2011）, Priority Among Competing Patent Applicants Under the American Invents Act, https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1969592 , （last visited June 7, 2017）
3.Executive Office of the President（2013）, Patent Assertion and U.S. Innovation, http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/docs/patent_report.pdf , （ last visited June 7, 2017）
4.Love Brian and Shawn Ambwani（2014）, Inter Partes Review: An Early Look at the Numbers,
http://digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1874&context=facpubs ,
（last visited June 7, 2017）
5.Mossinghoff Hon. Gerald J. and Stephen G. Kuni （2013）, New Post Grant Administrative Trials Before the USPTO’s Patent Trial and Appeal Board, http://tw.naipo.com/Portals/1/web_tw/Knowledge_Center/Laws/US-74.htm, （ last visited June 7, 2017）
6.USPTO（2014）, Preliminary Examination Instructions in view of the Supreme Court Decision in Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al.,http://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/patents/announce/alice_pec_25jun2014.pdf ,
（ last visited June 7, 2017）
7.USPTO, COMMENTS OF GOOGLE INC., April 25, 2014 , http://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/patents/law/comments/cr_e_google_201404 28.pdf , （ last visited June 7, 2017）