發(fā)布時(shí)間：2018-01-16 06:24

  本文關(guān)鍵詞：美國(guó)337調(diào)查與TRIPS協(xié)議實(shí)體規(guī)定沖突問(wèn)題研究　出處：《河北法學(xué)》2013年07期 　論文類(lèi)型：期刊論文

  更多相關(guān)文章： 條款 TRIPS協(xié)議 沖突

【摘要】：337條款的ITC訴訟與地區(qū)法院訴訟間在程序和實(shí)體方面的差異是GATT專(zhuān)家組異議的中心和爭(zhēng)議雙方分歧的焦點(diǎn)問(wèn)題之一,GATT/WTO迄今尚無(wú)明確裁決結(jié)果。該條款存在一定合理性,但在某些方面不符合TRIPS要求。美國(guó)國(guó)內(nèi)專(zhuān)利持有人在與國(guó)內(nèi)生產(chǎn)者間關(guān)于專(zhuān)利侵權(quán)的爭(zhēng)端中,僅能從美國(guó)國(guó)內(nèi)法院尋求救濟(jì),而該專(zhuān)利持有人在同外國(guó)生產(chǎn)者的專(zhuān)利爭(zhēng)端中卻享有救濟(jì)途徑"選擇權(quán)",實(shí)際上獲得雙重救濟(jì)機(jī)會(huì)。外國(guó)生產(chǎn)者被剝奪了救濟(jì)途徑的選擇權(quán),且增加了訟累,事實(shí)上造成不公平結(jié)果,構(gòu)成對(duì)外國(guó)產(chǎn)品和國(guó)民的歧視。國(guó)民待遇應(yīng)是實(shí)質(zhì)上而非僅是形式上。應(yīng)依WTO協(xié)定判斷該條款的合條約性,而非僅依其實(shí)施效果。二者在立法目的、價(jià)值選擇、基本原則等方面存在差異。TRIPS本身并不禁止337條款之類(lèi)的邊境措施,但該措施應(yīng)符合WTO協(xié)定。使國(guó)內(nèi)外被告人適用于相同機(jī)制是解決沖突的可能途徑。
[Abstract]:The procedural and substantive differences between the ITC litigation of Section 337 and that of the District Court are the focus of the disagreement between the GATT panel and the parties to the dispute. To date, the GATT/WTO has not made a clear decision. This clause has some reasonableness. In some respects, however, it does not meet the requirements of TRIPS. In a dispute over patent infringement between the United States and domestic producers, patent holders in the United States can only seek redress from the domestic courts of the United States. However, the patent holder has the right of choice in the patent dispute with foreign producers. In fact, he has got the opportunity of double relief. The foreign producer is deprived of the right to remedy and has increased the burden of litigation. In fact, it results in unfair results and constitutes discrimination against foreign products and nationals. National treatment should be substantive, not merely formal, and the treaty character of the clause should be judged on the basis of the WTO Agreement. There are differences between them in legislative purpose, value choice, basic principle and so on. Trips itself does not prohibit the border measures such as Section 337. However, this measure should conform to the WTO agreement, and it is a possible way to solve the conflict by applying the same mechanism to the defendants at home and abroad.
【作者單位】： 南京信息工程大學(xué)公共管理學(xué)院法律系;
【基金】：中國(guó)法學(xué)會(huì)課題《美國(guó)337調(diào)查與TRIPS協(xié)議一致性問(wèn)題研究》(CLS2011 D87)
【分類(lèi)號(hào)】：D971.2;D997.1
【正文快照】： 在國(guó)外,337條款是否與TRIPS協(xié)議一致,WTO并未有定論。許多美國(guó)學(xué)者認(rèn)為,ITC的裁決是公正的,沒(méi)有偏袒美國(guó)產(chǎn)業(yè)。這些學(xué)者的研究結(jié)論與TRIPS協(xié)議的規(guī)定存在諸多矛盾之處。337條款在若干方面違反了GATT相關(guān)法律規(guī)定,包括程序規(guī)則和實(shí)體規(guī)則。對(duì)337調(diào)查之合法性,應(yīng)具體問(wèn)題具體分

【相似文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 朱國(guó)華;陳元芳;;美國(guó)關(guān)稅法337條款與TRIPs協(xié)議的相悖性探析[J];暨南學(xué)報(bào)(哲學(xué)社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2010年02期

2 吳偉;;小議美國(guó)關(guān)稅法“337條款”[J];法制與經(jīng)濟(jì)(下半月);2008年01期

3 包振宇;;簡(jiǎn)析337條款的動(dòng)力機(jī)制與發(fā)展趨勢(shì)[J];知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán);2011年06期

4 尤琳,陳世偉;美國(guó)關(guān)稅法“337條款”對(duì)我國(guó)企業(yè)的沖擊及應(yīng)對(duì)策略[J];商場(chǎng)現(xiàn)代化;2005年16期

5 楊洪;從電池調(diào)查案淺探美國(guó)337條款及我國(guó)的應(yīng)對(duì)之策[J];理論界;2005年08期

6 熊建軍;;發(fā)展中國(guó)家法律移植失敗的成因——從促進(jìn)發(fā)展中國(guó)家基本藥品享用權(quán)的視角出發(fā)[J];法制與社會(huì);2008年23期

7 朱工宇;;美式FTA中與藥品專(zhuān)利有關(guān)的超TRIPs條款研究[J];廣西政法管理干部學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2009年03期

8 于秀s，

本文編號(hào)：1431929