我國著作權法雖明定不法侵害他人著作財產權者應負損害賠償責任，然就「何謂不法侵害著作財產權」一節，法條並未提供明確之判斷標準，致侵權與否之認定繫諸法院依個案事實審酌，從而於司法實務上產生相當之不確定性。本文作者於律師執業期間，對前揭不確定性所衍生之困境深有體會，蓋律師既難以事先精確預測法院之判斷傾向，遑論為當事人量身擬定最有效之訴訟策略。職是之故，本文嘗試以實證量化方法為研究取徑，藉由系統性蒐集、編碼及分析我國智慧財產及商業法院涉及著作財產權侵權之二審民事判決，探究影響法院侵權判斷之關鍵因素。
本文最終納入203筆「侵權行為事件」為分析資料庫，並就當事人特性、訴訟程序及抗辯事由三大類共13個自變數，與依變數「法院侵權與否之判斷」間之關聯性，依序進行敘述性統計分析、雙變數分析及階層式二元邏輯迴歸分析。經此一系列分析，本文共有五項研究發現：第一，二審侵權成立之比例（43.3%）略低於不成立之比例，顯示二審訴訟結果具高度不確定性；第二，抗辯事由乃影響法院侵權判斷之最關鍵變數類別，當事人特性及訴訟程序變數於控制其他變數後則均無顯著影響；第三，被訴侵權人主張「非權利人抗辯」具有高度且穩健之獨立效果，其使侵權成立之勝算降為未主張者之23.8%，本文認為此或係舉證責任分配所致；第四，「獨立創作抗辯」具邊際顯著之效果；第五，其餘十項研究假設皆未獲支持，足徵直觀預期與實證觀察間存有相當之落差。
本文之研究貢獻可分為學術及實務兩個層面。在學術理論層面，本文為我國首篇以迴歸分析模型探究著作權「侵權認定」之實證研究，補充了我國著作權實證研究之不足。於實務層面，本文之研究發現得協助被訴侵權人安排抗辯事由之優先順序、提醒著作權人於起訴前妥為權利歸屬之舉證準備，並為律師代理價值之展現方式提供反思之契機。

Although Taiwan’s Copyright Act provides that one who unlawfully infringes another’s economic copyright shall be liable for damages, it offers no clear standard for what constitutes “unlawful infringement of economic copyright.” The determination is therefore left to the courts’ assessment of the facts of each case, giving rise to considerable uncertainty in judicial practice. During the author’s time in legal practice, the author came to appreciate first-hand the difficulties this uncertainty creates: an attorney can neither accurately predict the court’s likely disposition in advance, much less tailor the most effective litigation strategy for the client. Accordingly, this thesis adopts an empirical, quantitative approach, systematically collecting, coding, and analyzing the second-instance civil judgments on economic copyright infringement rendered by Taiwan’s Intellectual Property and Commercial Court, in order to identify the key factors that shape the court’s infringement determinations.
A total of 203 “infringement events” were included in the analytical database. The associations between thirteen independent variables, grouped into three categories of party characteristics, litigation procedure, and defense claims, and the dependent variable of whether the court found infringement were examined successively through descriptive statistics, bivariate analysis, and hierarchical binary logistic regression. This series of analyses yielded five findings. First, the proportion of cases in which infringement was found (43.3%) was slightly lower than that in which it was not, indicating a high degree of uncertainty in second-instance outcomes. Second, defense claims constituted the most decisive category of variables, whereas party characteristics and litigation procedure showed no significant effect once other variables were controlled. Third, the defendant's assertion of a “non-owner defense” had a strong and robust independent effect, reducing the odds of an infringement finding to 23.8% of those without such an assertion, which the author considers may be attributable to the allocation of the burden of proof. Fourth, the “independent creation defense” had a marginally significant effect. Fifth, the remaining ten hypotheses were not supported, evidencing a notable gap between intuitive expectation and empirical observation.
The contributions of this thesis lie on two levels, academic and practical. On the academic and theoretical level, this thesis is the first empirical study in Taiwan to em-ploy a regression model to examine the determination of copyright infringement, thereby supplementing the limited body of empirical copyright scholarship in Taiwan. On the practical level, its findings can help accused infringers prioritize their defense claims, remind copyright holders to prepare evidence of rights ownership before filing suit, and offer an occasion to reflect on how the value of legal representation is best manifested.

一、中文文獻
書籍
邱皓政（2006），量化研究與統計分析：SPSS中文視窗版資料分析範例解析（第三版），三版，臺北：五南。
姜世明（2022），民事訴訟法《上冊》，八版，臺北：新學林。
姜世明（2023），民事訴訟法《下冊》，九版，頁99-106，臺北：新學林。
謝銘洋（2016），智慧財產權法，第7版，臺北：元照。
羅明通（2014），著作權法論I，第八版，臺北：台英商務法律。
羅明通（2014），著作權法論II，第八版，臺北：台英商務法律。
期刊論文
王立達、陳師敏（2014），專利間接侵權之制度規範：我國判決實證研究與法制建議，科技法學評論，11卷2期，頁41-86。
宋皇志（2006），我國專利侵權訴訟之實證研究，科技法學評論，3卷2期，頁249-282。
李素華、張哲倫（2013），專利審查品質與專利訴訟的實證考察——臺灣智慧財產法院成立五年的數據回顧，裁判時報，24期，頁94-112。
李治安、馮震宇（2013），臺灣營業秘密侵害訴訟之實證研究，月旦法學雜誌，216期，頁150-173。
吳佩珊（2014），智慧財產法院專利民事案件懲罰性損害賠償之實證研究，全國律師，18卷10期，頁43-60。
吳靜怡（2014），專利侵權損害賠償之實證研究，科技法學評論，11卷2期，頁175-250。
李素華（2019），臺灣專利侵權訴訟之實務現況：崩壞與亟待重生的智慧財產生態系統（Ecosystem），月旦法學雜誌，289期，頁124-146。
洪紹庭、王立達（2015），我國法上專利侵權賠償責任之主觀要件——以智財法院判決實證研究為中心，科技法學評論，12卷1期，頁57-95。
胡心蘭（2025），重回合理使用現場——解構美國聯邦最高法院依個案「客製化」合理使用分析之影響，成大法學，50期，頁191-279。
桂祥豪、熊誦梅、蘇瓜藤（2014），專利侵權損害賠償決策因子之研究——以台灣智慧財產法院之實證判決為基礎，智慧財產評論，12卷2期，頁99-152。
張添榜（2009），以實證觀點檢視我國積體電路電路布局保護法十二年的運作，科技法學評論，6卷1期，頁75-111。
張哲倫（2017），對智慧財產法院成立10年專利審判實務之總體觀察及建議，專利師，30期，頁1-33。
張添榜、王立達、劉尚志（2013年），我國專利法上均等論適用之實證研究：是變奏還是變調？，科技法學評論，10卷2期，頁1-71。
郭晴、鄭丰、梁琳、蔡昀霈、張紫茹、黃詩淳（2023），營業秘密判斷依據之實證研究，裁判時報，134期，頁78-88。
黃國昌（2007），律師代理對民事訴訟結果之影響─理論分析與實證研究間之激盪，中研院法學期刊，1期，頁45-104。
馮震宇（2020），智慧財產權侵權類型與認定，月旦法學教室，215期，頁56-65。
楊雅蘭（2024），著作權損害賠償實證研究——以數位侵權行為為中心（上），智慧財產權，310期，頁5-16。
楊雅蘭（2024），著作權損害賠償實證研究——以數位侵權行為為中心（下），智慧財產權，310期，頁17-32。
熊誦梅（2012），分久必合，合久必分——臺灣智慧財產訴訟新制之檢討與展望，月旦民商法雜誌，38期，頁23-39。
劉孔中、謝銘洋、馮震宇（2012），著作權判決實證研究——從智財法院成立後三年相關判決出發，月旦法學雜誌，203期，頁47-62。
蔡嘉裕（2021），著作權「轉化性使用」之我國本土案例分析，智慧財產權，271期，頁47-77。
劉正旭（2025），我國專利舉發聽證之實證與探討，智慧財產權，321期，頁27-51。
蘇郁雅（2013），我國合理使用判斷基準之實證研究分析，智慧財產評論，10卷2期，頁133-237。
蘇愷民、莊弘鈺（2025），專利貢獻度之適用及判準——我國法院實證分析與美國實務借鏡，萬國法律，260期，頁2-20。
網際網路
司法院行政訴訟及懲戒廳，智慧財產的專業法院何時設立？，司法院網站，2024年1月18日，上網日期2026年6月5日，檢自：https://www.judicial.gov.tw/tw/cp-1654-1023930-d9495-1.html。
二、英文文獻
期刊論文
Albert, André & John A. Anderson (1984), On the Existence of Maximum Likelihood Estimates in Logistic Regression Models, 74 Biometrika 1.
Asay, Clark D. (2022), An Empirical Study of Copyright's Substantial Similarity Test, 13 U.C. Irvine L. Rev. 35.
Beebe, Barton (2008), An Empirical Study of U.S. Copyright Fair Use Opinions, 1978-2005, 156 U. Pa. L. Rev. 549.
Beebe, Barton (2020), An Empirical Study of U.S. Copyright Fair Use Opinions Updated, 1978-2019, 10 N.Y.U. J. Intell. Prop. & Ent. L. 1.
Brady, Benjamin, Roy Germano & Christopher Jon Sprigman (2022), Statutory Damages under the Copyright Act: An Empirical Study, 2022 Mich. St. L. Rev. 1179.
Cohen, Jacob (1960), A Coefficient of Agreement for Nominal Scales, 20 Educ. & Psychol. Meas. 37.
Cohen, Jacob (1992), A Power Primer, 112 Psychol. Bull. 155.
Cotropia, Christopher Anthony & James Gibson (2014), Copyright's Topography: An Empirical Study of Copyright Litigation, 92(7) Tex. L. Rev. 1981.
Fisher, Ronald Aylmer (1922), On the Interpretation of X squared from Contingency Tables, and the Calculation of P, 85 J. R. Stat. Soc. 87.
Galanter, Marc (1974), Why the “Haves” Come out Ahead: Speculations on the Limits of Legal Change, 9 L. & Soc'y Rev. 95
Hosmer, David W. & Stanley Lemeshow (1980), Goodness of Fit Tests for the Multiple Logistic Regression Model, 9 Comm. Stat. Theory Methods 1043.
Hayes, Andrew F. & Klaus Krippendorff (2007), Answering the Call for a Standard Reliability Measure for Coding Data, 1 Comm. Methods & Measures 77.
Landis, J. Richard & Gary G. Koch (1977), The Measurement of Observer Agreement for Categorical Data, 33 Biometrics 159.
Landes, William M. (2004), An Empirical Analysis of Intellectual Property Litigation: Some Preliminary Results, 41 Hous. L. Rev. 749.
Liu, Jiarui (2012), Copyright Injunctions after eBay: An Empirical Study, 16 Lewis & Clark L. Rev. 215.
MacKinnon, David P., Jennifer L. Krull & Chondra M. Lockwood (2000), Equivalence of the Mediation, Confounding and Suppression Effect, 1 Prev. Sci. 173.
Midi, Habshah, S.K. Sarkar & Sohel Rana (2010), Collinearity diagnostics of binary logistic regression model, 13 J. Interdisc. Math. 253.
Nagelkerke, N. J. D. (1991), A Note on a General Definition of the Coefficient of Determination, 78 Biometrika 691.
O’Brien, Robert M. (2007), A Caution Regarding Rules of Thumb for Variance Inflation Factors, 41 Qual. & Quant. 673.
Priest, George L. & Benjamin Klein (1984), The Selection of Disputes for Litigation, 13 J. Legal Stud. 1.
Pritschet, Laura, Derek Powell & Zachary Horne (2016), Marginally Significant Effects as Evidence for Hy-potheses: Changing Attitudes Over Four Decades, 27 Psychol. Sci. 1036.
Szumilas, Magdalena (2010), Explaining Odds Ratios, 19 J. Can. Acad. Child Adolesc. Psychiatry 227.
Sperandei, Sandro (2014), Understanding Logistic Regression Analysis, 24 Biochem. Med. 12.
Sag, Matthew (2012), Predicting Fair Use, 73:1 Ohio St. L.J. 47.
Thabane, Lehana, Lawrence Mbuagbaw, Shiyuan Zhang, Zainab Marcucci Samaan, Ye Maura, Thabane Chenglin, Giangregorio Marroon, Dennis Lora, Kosa Brittany, Debono Daisy, Victoria Borg, Rejane Dillenburg, Vincent Fruci, Monica Bawor, Juneyoung Lee, George Wells, & Charles H Goldsmith, (2013), A Tutorial on Sensitivity Analyses in Clinical Trials: The What, Why, When and How, 13 BMC Med. Res. Methodol. 92.
Whittingham, Mark J., Philip A. Stephens, Richard B. Bradbury & Robert P. Freckleton (2006), Why Do We Still Use Stepwise M/odelling in Ecology and Behaviour?, 75 J. Anim. Ecol. 1182.