本文關(guān)鍵詞： 專利侵權(quán) 為生產(chǎn)經(jīng)營(yíng)目的 單位 公共利益　出處：《清華大學(xué)》2015年碩士論文　論文類型：學(xué)位論文

【摘要】：在我國《專利法》中“為生產(chǎn)經(jīng)營(yíng)目的”作為認(rèn)定侵權(quán)的構(gòu)成要件之一,長(zhǎng)期以來并未受到理論界和司法實(shí)踐的重視。司法實(shí)踐中對(duì)這一要件的認(rèn)定觀點(diǎn)并不統(tǒng)一,甚至出現(xiàn)相反的結(jié)論。法院在考慮這一要件時(shí)對(duì)單位的認(rèn)定以及單位是否需要構(gòu)成“為業(yè)”上觀點(diǎn)并不相同。實(shí)踐中,對(duì)于不以出售為目的的制造行為、使用行為以及不以出售為目的的進(jìn)口行為,是認(rèn)定是否構(gòu)成“為生產(chǎn)經(jīng)營(yíng)目的”的主要爭(zhēng)議點(diǎn)所在。本文通過對(duì)專利法基本理論、對(duì)“為生產(chǎn)經(jīng)營(yíng)目的”的學(xué)理研究、司法解釋以及對(duì)司法案例的全面梳理,通過比較國外立法的規(guī)定,并對(duì)主要的爭(zhēng)議問題進(jìn)行了討論,以對(duì)明晰“為生產(chǎn)經(jīng)營(yíng)目的”的解釋和適用。本文初步得出的結(jié)論為:“為生產(chǎn)經(jīng)營(yíng)目的”應(yīng)當(dāng)做廣義理解;企業(yè)只有在測(cè)試專利方案是否可行時(shí)不構(gòu)成“為生產(chǎn)經(jīng)營(yíng)目的”,行政機(jī)關(guān)和事業(yè)單位無法以公共利益抗辯其不構(gòu)成“為生產(chǎn)經(jīng)營(yíng)目的”。本文總共七章,首先由司法實(shí)踐的案例引出在認(rèn)定“為生產(chǎn)經(jīng)營(yíng)目的”上出現(xiàn)的問題;其次梳理本國學(xué)界、司法解釋對(duì)該問題的基本認(rèn)識(shí);再次比較國外相似立法,得出并不能完全借鑒“私下且非商業(yè)性目的”例外的結(jié)論;第四,從專利法的基本原理和產(chǎn)業(yè)政策方面得出需對(duì)“為生產(chǎn)經(jīng)營(yíng)目的”做廣義理解的結(jié)論;第五,對(duì)認(rèn)定本問題時(shí)出現(xiàn)的主要爭(zhēng)議點(diǎn)進(jìn)行闡述;最后總結(jié)出本文的結(jié)論。由于“為生產(chǎn)經(jīng)營(yíng)目的”的表述本身存在一定的模糊性,本文呼吁將來的立法對(duì)該表述進(jìn)行一定的修改,以明確其內(nèi)涵。
[Abstract]:In the Patent Law of our country, "for the purpose of production and operation" is regarded as one of the constitutive requirements for the determination of infringement. For a long time, it has not been paid attention to by the theoretical circle and judicial practice. There is even a contrary conclusion. In considering this element, the court has different views on the determination of the unit and whether or not the unit needs to constitute "for the purpose of business." in practice, there is a difference in the case of a manufacturing act which is not intended for the purpose of sale. The use behavior and the import behavior which does not take the sale as the purpose, is the main dispute point which determines whether to constitute "for the production and operation purpose". This article passes to the patent law basic theory. This paper studies the theory of "for the purpose of production and management", judicial interpretation and the comprehensive combing of judicial cases, through comparing the provisions of foreign legislation, and discusses the main controversial issues. Based on the interpretation and application of "for the purpose of production and operation", this paper draws the following conclusions: "for the purpose of production and operation" should be understood in a broad sense; Only when the enterprise tests whether the patent scheme is feasible or not, it does not constitute "for the purpose of production and operation", and the administrative organs and institutions cannot defend it with the public interest which does not constitute "for the purpose of production and operation". There are seven chapters in this paper. First of all, the case of judicial practice leads to the problems in the identification of "for the purpose of production and management"; Secondly, combing the basic understanding of this problem in the academic circles of our country, the judicial interpretation; Comparing the similar legislation of foreign countries again, we can draw the conclusion that the exception of "private and non-commercial purpose" can not be completely used for reference; 4th, from the patent law basic principle and the industrial policy aspect obtains the conclusion which needs to make the broad understanding to "for the production management purpose"; 5th, to confirm this question the main dispute point that appears carries on the elaboration; Finally, the conclusion of this paper is summarized. Due to the fuzziness of the expression "for the purpose of production and operation", this paper calls for future legislation to modify the expression to clarify its connotation.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：清華大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2015
【分類號(hào)】：D923.42

【相似文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前1條

1 林祥;核心思想──企業(yè)不敗的保證[J];湖湘論壇;1998年02期

相關(guān)重要報(bào)紙文章 前4條

1 廣東省佛開高速公路有限公司 李永梅;員工幸福是企業(yè)的經(jīng)營(yíng)目的[N];南方日?qǐng)?bào);2011年

2 江蘇省常州市中級(jí)人民法院 毛荔萍 劉穎;“為生產(chǎn)經(jīng)營(yíng)目的”之認(rèn)定[N];人民法院報(bào);2012年

3 楊子;農(nóng)夫用漏水桶挑水的啟示[N];中華建筑報(bào);2006年

4 李春蓮　唐振偉;鐵路煤運(yùn)遭遇天價(jià)“過路費(fèi)”[N];現(xiàn)代物流報(bào);2014年

相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前2條

1 黃丹越;專利侵權(quán)中“為生產(chǎn)經(jīng)營(yíng)目的”的認(rèn)定[D];清華大學(xué);2015年

2 趙成];專利法中“為生產(chǎn)經(jīng)營(yíng)目的”的認(rèn)定[D];華東政法大學(xué);2011年

，

本文編號(hào)：1450934