本文選題：國(guó)際技術(shù)貿(mào)易　切入點(diǎn)：知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)濫用　出處：《中國(guó)政法大學(xué)》2011年碩士論文　論文類(lèi)型：學(xué)位論文

【摘要】：在知識(shí)經(jīng)濟(jì)即將到來(lái)的時(shí)代,國(guó)際技術(shù)貿(mào)易中的知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)濫用行為將對(duì)一國(guó)經(jīng)濟(jì)的發(fā)展產(chǎn)生重要影響。如何對(duì)知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)濫用進(jìn)行有效的法律規(guī)制與知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)的保護(hù)同等重要。但是對(duì)知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)濫用進(jìn)行法律規(guī)制,需要建立起一套系統(tǒng)的知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)濫用的法律體系,在此之前還需要對(duì)知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)濫用的理論基礎(chǔ)及概念界定形成合理的認(rèn)識(shí)。本文試圖通過(guò)對(duì)知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)濫用的理論基礎(chǔ)進(jìn)行探討,以民法“禁止權(quán)利濫用”對(duì)知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)濫用法律規(guī)制體系的目標(biāo)和性質(zhì)進(jìn)行定位,在此基礎(chǔ)上試對(duì)知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)濫用的概念、分類(lèi)、表現(xiàn)做出界定。然后針對(duì)國(guó)際技術(shù)貿(mào)易中的知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)濫用行為:許可合同中的限制性條款、拒絕許可、不實(shí)施專(zhuān)利三種行為,分章節(jié)進(jìn)行著重論述。通過(guò)本文,筆者嘗試對(duì)國(guó)際技術(shù)貿(mào)易中的知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)濫用行為歸納出盡量完整清晰的法律規(guī)制思路,探討如何結(jié)合反壟斷法和知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)法對(duì)影響我國(guó)國(guó)際技術(shù)貿(mào)易正常開(kāi)展的知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)濫用問(wèn)題進(jìn)行法律規(guī)制提出力所能及的建議。 文章結(jié)構(gòu)安排如下: 第一章為“國(guó)際技術(shù)貿(mào)易中知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)濫用行為的界定”,從知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)濫用與民法“禁止權(quán)利濫用”原則的關(guān)系出發(fā),對(duì)知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)濫用的產(chǎn)生原因、行為后果、概念構(gòu)成、及行為類(lèi)別進(jìn)行分析與歸納;并在此基礎(chǔ)上對(duì)國(guó)際技術(shù)貿(mào)易中的知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)濫用行為的概念界定及其表現(xiàn)形式做出一般性概括:根據(jù)知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)實(shí)體權(quán)利的主要內(nèi)容(獨(dú)占實(shí)施權(quán)和許可權(quán))將國(guó)際技術(shù)貿(mào)易中知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)濫用行為的表現(xiàn)形式主要概括為濫用許可權(quán)(許可合同中限制性條款、拒絕許可)、不實(shí)施行為。 第二章為“知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)許可合同中限制性條款的法律規(guī)制”,對(duì)限制性條款做列舉式概括;對(duì)反壟斷法對(duì)知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)濫用進(jìn)行規(guī)制的必要性進(jìn)行論述;分別對(duì)美國(guó)和歐盟知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)濫用的反壟斷法規(guī)制的立法和實(shí)踐進(jìn)行分析,并對(duì)兩者在法律規(guī)制中的特點(diǎn)做出比較和總結(jié);分析反壟斷法規(guī)制知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)濫用存在的局限性,并對(duì)我國(guó)反壟斷法的規(guī)制特點(diǎn)和有待改進(jìn)的方面做出總結(jié)。 第三章為“對(duì)國(guó)際技術(shù)貿(mào)易中拒絕許可行為的法律規(guī)制”,對(duì)拒絕許可的產(chǎn)生原因、分類(lèi)進(jìn)行分析;提出對(duì)拒絕許可應(yīng)區(qū)分知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)法的規(guī)制方法和反壟斷法的規(guī)制方法,并對(duì)兩個(gè)方面分別進(jìn)行論述:對(duì)拒絕許可適用知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)法的強(qiáng)制許可規(guī)制的論述中,對(duì)TRIPS協(xié)議和我國(guó)知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)法中的強(qiáng)制許可制度的特點(diǎn)以及適用于對(duì)拒絕許可行為的法律規(guī)制進(jìn)行了論述;以歐盟Magill案、IMS案、德國(guó)Spundfass案,以及歐盟和美國(guó)對(duì)微軟拒絕許可行為的司法判定為例,對(duì)知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)拒絕許可進(jìn)行反壟斷法規(guī)制的“新產(chǎn)品規(guī)則”和“關(guān)鍵設(shè)施規(guī)則”進(jìn)行分析。 第四章為“對(duì)專(zhuān)利權(quán)人不實(shí)施專(zhuān)利的法律規(guī)制”,對(duì)專(zhuān)利權(quán)人不實(shí)施專(zhuān)利的原因、表現(xiàn)和違法性進(jìn)行分析;分析了各國(guó)立法和《巴黎公約》中的“專(zhuān)利當(dāng)?shù)貙?shí)施要求”對(duì)不實(shí)施行為的法律規(guī)制,以及我國(guó)修訂后的專(zhuān)利法中對(duì)不實(shí)施專(zhuān)利的強(qiáng)制許可規(guī)定;對(duì)《巴黎公約》第5條A款中的“專(zhuān)利當(dāng)?shù)貙?shí)施要求”是否與TRIPS協(xié)議第27條的規(guī)定相矛盾的問(wèn)題,從《巴黎公約》與RTIPS協(xié)議的關(guān)系、“專(zhuān)利當(dāng)?shù)貙?shí)施要求”與TRIPS協(xié)議第31條專(zhuān)利強(qiáng)制許可制度之間的關(guān)系、以及TRIPS協(xié)議第27條的規(guī)定如何解釋,三個(gè)層次進(jìn)行論述,得出《巴黎公約》中的“專(zhuān)利當(dāng)?shù)貙?shí)施要求”并不與TRIPS協(xié)議第27條的規(guī)定相矛盾,而是作為專(zhuān)利強(qiáng)制許可制度的組成部分,是對(duì)專(zhuān)利權(quán)人的權(quán)利限制規(guī)定,是對(duì)TRIPS協(xié)議的公共健康政策和公共利益目標(biāo)的體現(xiàn),有利于促進(jìn)成員國(guó)科技進(jìn)步和經(jīng)濟(jì)發(fā)展的結(jié)論。 結(jié)論部分根據(jù)上述四個(gè)部分對(duì)知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)濫用法律規(guī)制的理論基礎(chǔ)、概念界定、行為表現(xiàn)和法律規(guī)則方法的論述,對(duì)知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)濫用的法律規(guī)制體系進(jìn)行設(shè)想和構(gòu)建,提出應(yīng)當(dāng)結(jié)合知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)法和反壟斷法以及其他相關(guān)部門(mén)法對(duì)知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)濫用行為形成全面的法律規(guī)制體系,并對(duì)我國(guó)相關(guān)領(lǐng)域法律規(guī)定的完善提出一些修改和補(bǔ)充建議。
[Abstract]:As the coming of knowledge economy era, the international technology trade in the abuse of intellectual property rights will have an important influence on the development of the economy of a country. How to protect the legal regulation of the abuse of intellectual property rights and intellectual property rights effectively are equally important. But the abuse of intellectual property rights in the legal regulation, need to establish a legal system of abuse the system of intellectual property rights, before also need theoretical basis and concept definition of abuse of intellectual property rights to form a reasonable understanding. This paper attempts to explore the theoretical basis of the abuse of intellectual property rights, to locate the target and the nature of civil law "Prohibition of abuse of rights" on the abuse of intellectual property legal system, on the basis of test the concept of abuse of intellectual property classification, performance definition. Then according to the international technology trade in intellectual property abuse: license contract Restrictive clauses, refusal to license the patent, not three kinds of behavior, the chapter elaborates. Through this article, the author attempts to international technology trade in intellectual property abuse summed up the legal regulation to complete and clear thinking, to explore how to combine the anti-monopoly law and intellectual property law on the impact of international technology trade in our country is normal the abuse of intellectual property rights and put forward the advice of legal regulation.
The structure of the article is arranged as follows:
The first chapter is "the international technology trade" definition of abuse of intellectual property rights, the abuse of intellectual property rights of civil law and the relationship between the "Prohibition of abuse of rights principle, the causes, the abuse of intellectual property rights behavior concept, consequences, and behavior are analyzed and classified categories; and on the basis of the concept of international technology trade the abuse of intellectual property rights and the definition of form makes a general summary: according to the main content of intellectual property rights entity (monopoly implementation right and license) intellectual property in international trade of technology as the main form of abuse is summarized as abuse of license (restrictive clauses, the license contract refused permission), not the implementation of behavior.
The second chapter is "the legal regulation of restrictive clauses in licensing contract of intellectual property, the restrictive clauses do list summary; discusses the necessity of anti-monopoly law to regulate the abuse of intellectual property right respectively; the legislation and practice of anti monopoly law regulation of abuse of intellectual property rights in the United States and the European Union are analyzed, and make comparison and summary of the legal regulation of the characteristics; analysis of anti-monopoly law to regulate the abuse of intellectual property rights limitation, and summarize the characteristics of regulation of anti-monopoly law in our country and needs to be improved.
The third chapter is "the legal regulation of" refuse to license in the international technology trade, has the reason to refuse to license the classification analysis; put forward to the method of regulation should permit refused to distinguish regulation of intellectual property law and anti-monopoly law, and the two aspects were discussed: the compulsory licensing regulation refused permission for the law of intellectual property right of the exposition, the characteristics of TRIPS agreement and China's intellectual property law in the compulsory licensing system and is suitable for the legal regulation of refusing tolicense were discussed; in the EU Magill case, IMS case, Spundfass case, Germany, the European Union and the United States of Microsoft refuse to license the judicial determination for the analysis of intellectual property rights cases, refused to permit the antitrust regulation of the "new product rules" and "critical infrastructure" rules.
The fourth chapter is "the legal regulation of patent holder is the implementation of the patent, the patent holder is patent reason, performance analysis and illegality; analysis of national legislation and the" Paris Convention "patent > in the local implementation of requirements of the implementation of the legal regulation of behavior, the revision of the Patent Law and I after the country in the implementation of the patent compulsory license is not the provisions of the Paris convention; fifth < > paragraph A in the" local patent implementation requirements "provisions of article twenty-seventh of the TRIPS agreement and the contradiction between" Paris Convention "and the relationship between the RTIPS protocol," local patent implementation requirements "relationship between compulsory and TRIPS protocol thirty-first patent licensing system, and how to interpret the provisions of the TRIPS agreement in article twenty-seventh, three levels of discourse, the" Paris Convention "> in the local implementation of patent requirements provisions and article twenty-seventh of the TRIPS agreement is not contradictory, It is a part of the compulsory license system of patents, a restriction on the rights of patenpersons. It is a reflection of public health policy and public interest goal of TRIPS agreement, and is conducive to promoting the progress of science and technology and economic development of member countries.
Conclusion according to the theoretical basis, the four part of the legal regulation of the abuse of intellectual property rights concept, behavior and legal rules discussed, ideas and constructing of the legal regulation system of the abuse of intellectual property rights, we should combine the intellectual property law and anti-monopoly law and other relevant departments to form a comprehensive legal regulation system the abuse of intellectual property, and puts forward some suggestions to perfect to amend and supplement the provisions of the relevant laws in China.

【學(xué)位授予單位】：中國(guó)政法大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2011
【分類(lèi)號(hào)】：D996;D997.1

【相似文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 張莉麗;;淺談非婚同居法律規(guī)制研究[J];才智;2011年18期

2 羅小麗;;我國(guó)價(jià)格卡特爾及其法律規(guī)制的研究[J];經(jīng)營(yíng)管理者;2011年14期

3 孫曼曼;;知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)濫用時(shí)企業(yè)權(quán)利的反壟斷法救濟(jì)[J];中國(guó)經(jīng)貿(mào)導(dǎo)刊;2011年15期

4 反壟斷與反不正當(dāng)競(jìng)爭(zhēng)執(zhí)法專(zhuān)家型人才培訓(xùn)班第七課題組;;淺議知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)濫用的反壟斷規(guī)制[J];中國(guó)工商管理研究;2011年07期

5 左玉茹;;第一屆知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)、標(biāo)準(zhǔn)與反壟斷法國(guó)際研討會(huì)紀(jì)實(shí)報(bào)道[J];電子知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán);2011年06期

6 張猛;;論網(wǎng)絡(luò)廣告的法律規(guī)制[J];法制與社會(huì);2011年21期

7 郜潔;;論家庭暴力及其法律規(guī)制[J];新鄉(xiāng)學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào)(社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2010年06期

8 杜興濤;;小額貸款公司的法律規(guī)制[J];合作經(jīng)濟(jì)與科技;2011年15期

9 尚毅;;我國(guó)對(duì)外資并購(gòu)反壟斷法律規(guī)制的現(xiàn)狀與完善[J];重慶科技學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào)(社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2011年13期

10 侯佳曼;;論管理層收購(gòu)的法律規(guī)制[J];法制與社會(huì);2011年20期

相關(guān)會(huì)議論文 前10條

1 路洋;王可;;從“微軟黑屏”看知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)濫用[A];當(dāng)代法學(xué)論壇（二○○九年第2輯）[C];2009年

2 薛靜;杜洪波;;論性的法律規(guī)制[A];中國(guó)性學(xué)會(huì)第五屆年會(huì)學(xué)術(shù)論文集[C];2003年

3 王先林;;在華跨國(guó)公司知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)濫用的反壟斷法分析[A];城市經(jīng)濟(jì)與微區(qū)位研究——全國(guó)城市經(jīng)濟(jì)地理與微區(qū)位學(xué)術(shù)研討會(huì)論文集[C];2004年

4 張偉君;;TRIPS協(xié)議與我國(guó)規(guī)制知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)濫用法律制度的完善[A];《WTO法與中國(guó)論壇》文集——中國(guó)法學(xué)會(huì)世界貿(mào)易組織法研究會(huì)年會(huì)論文集（八）[C];2009年

5 柯堅(jiān);;關(guān)于我國(guó)環(huán)保產(chǎn)業(yè)發(fā)展的法律思考[A];中國(guó)環(huán)境保護(hù)產(chǎn)業(yè)發(fā)展戰(zhàn)略論壇論文集[C];2000年

6 王桂林;張樹(shù)興;;我國(guó)西部生態(tài)恢復(fù)與重建的法律規(guī)制探討[A];生態(tài)文明與環(huán)境資源法--2009年全國(guó)環(huán)境資源法學(xué)研討會(huì)（年會(huì)）論文集[C];2009年

7 戈華清;;數(shù)字環(huán)保的法律規(guī)范與法律思考[A];適應(yīng)市場(chǎng)機(jī)制的環(huán)境法制建設(shè)問(wèn)題研究——2002年中國(guó)環(huán)境資源法學(xué)研討會(huì)論文集（上冊(cè)）[C];2002年

8 朱曄;;私募基金法律調(diào)控探析[A];城市經(jīng)濟(jì)與微區(qū)位研究——全國(guó)城市經(jīng)濟(jì)地理與微區(qū)位學(xué)術(shù)研討會(huì)論文集[C];2004年

9 王先林;;實(shí)施國(guó)家知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)戰(zhàn)略與規(guī)制知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)濫用[A];中國(guó)知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)發(fā)展戰(zhàn)略論壇論文集[C];2005年

10 朱娟;;對(duì)我國(guó)非點(diǎn)源污染狀況的考察及法律思考[A];水污染防治立法和循環(huán)經(jīng)濟(jì)立法研究——2005年全國(guó)環(huán)境資源法學(xué)研討會(huì)論文集（第一冊(cè)）[C];2005年

相關(guān)重要報(bào)紙文章 前10條

1 本報(bào)記者 姚們;知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)濫用需專(zhuān)門(mén)規(guī)章解決[N];法制日?qǐng)?bào);2005年

2 汕頭市食品藥品監(jiān)督管理局 廖仲宇;淺談危險(xiǎn)廢物的法律規(guī)制[N];汕頭日?qǐng)?bào);2009年

3 蘇殷;高速公路免費(fèi)放行需要法律規(guī)制[N];檢察日?qǐng)?bào);2010年

4 記者 李小彤;“全球經(jīng)濟(jì)衰退與法律規(guī)制” 國(guó)際研討會(huì)在京舉行[N];中國(guó)勞動(dòng)保障報(bào);2010年

5 檢察官 王新環(huán);現(xiàn)場(chǎng)狙擊的法律規(guī)制[N];檢察日?qǐng)?bào);2009年

6 周曉言;家庭“冷暴力”亟待法律規(guī)制[N];江蘇法制報(bào);2011年

7 景永利;“新聞打假”還需法律規(guī)制[N];人民法院報(bào);2011年

8 王先林;重視對(duì)知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)濫用行為的控制[N];法制日?qǐng)?bào);2003年

9 徐冠華;保護(hù)、創(chuàng)造和發(fā)展知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)[N];人民日?qǐng)?bào)海外版;2006年

10 教授 劉誠(chéng);強(qiáng)化法律規(guī)制以應(yīng)對(duì)金融危機(jī)[N];法制日?qǐng)?bào);2009年

相關(guān)博士學(xué)位論文 前10條

1 陳劍玲;論對(duì)外貿(mào)易中的知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)濫用及其法律規(guī)制[D];對(duì)外經(jīng)濟(jì)貿(mào)易大學(xué);2007年

2 龔艷;仇恨言論的法律規(guī)制研究[D];山東大學(xué);2011年

3 張立先;金融應(yīng)急管理的法律規(guī)制研究[D];山東大學(xué);2012年

4 武長(zhǎng)海;論知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)濫用的法律規(guī)制[D];對(duì)外經(jīng)濟(jì)貿(mào)易大學(xué);2007年

5 朱文雁;論英國(guó)對(duì)誹謗的法律規(guī)制[D];山東大學(xué);2012年

6 張健;專(zhuān)利權(quán)濫用及其法律規(guī)制研究[D];吉林大學(xué);2011年

7 汪澤;論對(duì)場(chǎng)外衍生產(chǎn)品的法律規(guī)制[D];對(duì)外經(jīng)濟(jì)貿(mào)易大學(xué);2006年

8 曹霞;可持續(xù)發(fā)展視野下中國(guó)小礦的法律規(guī)制[D];中國(guó)人民大學(xué);2008年

9 向東;我國(guó)政府債券法律制度研究[D];中央民族大學(xué);2007年

10 寧立志;知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)的競(jìng)爭(zhēng)法限制[D];武漢大學(xué);2005年

相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前10條

1 謝沁;知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)濫用及其法律規(guī)制[D];湘潭大學(xué);2005年

2 葛蔓;論知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)濫用的法律規(guī)制[D];南昌大學(xué);2007年

3 楊艷;論知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)濫用的反壟斷法律規(guī)制[D];西北大學(xué);2008年

4 張今越;知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)濫用的反壟斷法規(guī)制分析[D];復(fù)旦大學(xué);2008年

5 王梅;論知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)濫用的反壟斷法規(guī)制[D];華僑大學(xué);2008年

6 吳靜;知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)濫用的反壟斷法律規(guī)制研究[D];西北大學(xué);2008年

7 吳玉茹;論知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)濫用的法律規(guī)制[D];天津財(cái)經(jīng)大學(xué);2008年

8 張帆;知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)濫用與反壟斷法規(guī)制[D];云南財(cái)經(jīng)大學(xué);2009年

9 謝琴錚;國(guó)際法視野下的知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)濫用規(guī)制[D];復(fù)旦大學(xué);2009年

10 成家全;對(duì)技術(shù)標(biāo)準(zhǔn)中知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)濫用行為的反壟斷法規(guī)制[D];貴州大學(xué);2007年

，

本文編號(hào)：1610560