學術機構經常因許多人之參與而完成研究，更因參與人參與程度與重要性不同，因而導致學術研究之成果的發明人有時難以在計畫完成時加以確認，引發後續專利權歸屬爭議。專利權歸屬爭議嚴重性，將可因為更正發明人或增加共有發明人，引發原專利權人行使權利瑕疵，而可能造成後續授權無效以及專利權獲益重新分配等嚴重問題。我國自1999年通過科學技術基本法，其立法背景與美國拜杜法案相似。其中第6條第1項規定，政府資助之計畫，得將全部或一部歸屬於執行研究發展之單位所有。此一規定與我國專利法中有關專利權人規定相異。然而，美國2011年最高法院在Bd. of Trs. v. Roche Molecular Sys.乙案見解，認為拜杜法案並無取代專利法對於專利歸屬之規定，此一見解或有助於釐清科學技術基本法與專利法對專利歸屬規定之爭議。為解決我國學研機構專利權歸屬之爭議，本文將由專利法出發，釐清專利權共有相關法律概念；其次分析我國學術研究機有關智慧財產權歸屬之相關法規對專利權歸屬之影響；再分析美國與台灣學術研究機構專利權歸屬爭議案件，並依分析結果提出專利權歸屬爭議分析架構，並提出規避專利權歸屬爭議之相關建議。 In academic research, it is sometimes difficult to identify all participating inventors when the research completed, because multiple participants often involve in academic research in different stages and at different levels. This situation creates an environment for disputes of ownership of patent. The disputes of ownership of patent are serious, because they would trigger more fatal problems in the enforcement of patent, such as invalidity of exclusive patent licenses and reallocation of revenue from patent for additional inventors. In 1999, Taiwan enacted the “Fundamental Science and Technology Act” which is modeled after the US Bayh-Dole Act. Article 6 of Fundamental Science and Technology provides that government agency may vest the title of intellectual property arising from government-sponsored plan on implementing institutions. This is a different understating of ownership from what is known under Patent Law. However, in the case of Bd. of Trs. v. Roche Molecular Sys., the US Supreme Court essentially held that the supremacy of Patent Law and affirmed Bayh-Dole Act does not replace the rules of the Patent Act. This opinion may help us to clarify the conflicts between patent law and Fundamental Science and Technology Ac. In order to resolve the dispute of ownership of patent arising from academic research in Taiwan, this article will define the related concepts in relation to the co-ownership of patent. The article also analyzes the relevant laws and regulations in relation to ownership of intellectual property in academic research institutions. It further explores case law that has discussed ownership of patent arising from academic research institutions in Taiwan and the United States. Finally, through the discussions, it shall provide academic institutions to formulate the better scheme to avoid the disputes of co-ownership of patent.