本文選題：相同侵權(quán)　切入點：現(xiàn)有技術(shù)抗辯　出處：《煙臺大學》2014年碩士論文　論文類型：學位論文

【摘要】：法院在審里專利侵權(quán)訴訟過程中，一般是先根據(jù)原告提供的專利權(quán)利要求書及相關(guān)專利文件確定專利權(quán)保護范圍，再對被控技術(shù)方案進行分析，判斷是否落入了專利權(quán)保護范圍以確定原告侵權(quán)主張是否成立。而被告的應對策略一般是證明自己使用的技術(shù)在專利權(quán)保護范圍之外或者通過向國家知識產(chǎn)權(quán)局提出無效宣告審查申請，主張原告專利權(quán)無效，以達到不承擔專利侵權(quán)責任的目的。然而，由于我國實行的是專利行政確權(quán)與侵權(quán)司法審查分離制度，即使被告主張自己使用的是現(xiàn)有技術(shù)，也往往需要先向?qū)＠麖蛯徫瘑T會提出專利無效宣告申請，而陷入極為不利的訴累狀態(tài)。 2008年修訂的《專利法》正式以法律的形式確立我國現(xiàn)有技術(shù)抗辯制度，使得被告在面對專利侵權(quán)指控時，能直接以自己所使用的是現(xiàn)有技術(shù)為由進行抗辯，法院也無需中止訴訟等待專利復審委員會無效宣告審查結(jié)果，即可作出獨立判決。實施現(xiàn)有技術(shù)抗辯制度能有效得提高訴訟效率，，減輕當事人的訴累，同時還有利于遏制專利權(quán)人惡意訴訟。 現(xiàn)有技術(shù)抗辯制度在我國建立時間很短段，還有很多不完善的地方，目前學術(shù)界對于現(xiàn)有技術(shù)抗辯的適用范圍、對比順序、成立標準等還存在著較大的爭議。本文從現(xiàn)有技術(shù)制度的起源開始介紹，對當前司法實踐中爭議較多的問題就行探討，重點對可以用抗辯的現(xiàn)有技術(shù)范圍、適用原則、現(xiàn)有技術(shù)抗辯成立標準的核心問題進行研究，希望對我國現(xiàn)有技術(shù)抗辯制度的發(fā)展與完善有些微參考價值。 本文主要通過五個章節(jié)來介紹我國現(xiàn)有技術(shù)抗辯制度。 第一部分主要介紹了現(xiàn)有技術(shù)抗辯制度的基本理論，包括現(xiàn)有技術(shù)抗辯的概念、起源、制度價值以及在我國的發(fā)展歷程。 第二部分主要從“時間限定”、“地域限定”和“是否為公眾所知”三個方面論述了可用以抗辯的現(xiàn)有技術(shù)范圍。同時著重闡述了現(xiàn)有技術(shù)能否延及簡單組合問題，提出了用于抗辯的現(xiàn)有技術(shù)既可以是單獨的一分現(xiàn)有技術(shù)，也可以是多份現(xiàn)有技術(shù)組合，但僅限于簡單組合的觀點。 第三部分詳細闡述了在等同侵權(quán)和相同侵權(quán)條件下適用現(xiàn)有技術(shù)抗辯存在的問題爭議，同時介紹了美國、日本和德國在相同侵權(quán)情況下適用現(xiàn)有技術(shù)抗辯的制度。對我國現(xiàn)有技術(shù)抗辯使用范圍提出建議。 第四部主要論述了現(xiàn)有技術(shù)抗辯中的認定問題，包括對比順序、認定標準等。介紹了當前關(guān)于現(xiàn)有技術(shù)抗辯成立標準的三種主要觀點：新穎性標準、創(chuàng)造性標準和相同和十分接近準，并從法理基礎、現(xiàn)實依據(jù)和立法依據(jù)三個方面提出了我國對比標準的構(gòu)建。 第五部分主要介紹了現(xiàn)有技術(shù)抗辯和無效宣告程序的區(qū)別和各自特點，為被控侵權(quán)人選擇應對策略提供參考。
[Abstract]:In the course of the trial of patent infringement proceedings, the court usually determines the scope of patent protection according to the patent claim and related patent documents provided by the plaintiff, and then analyzes the technical scheme of the accused. The defendant's strategy is to prove that the technology he uses is outside the scope of patent protection or by addressing the state intellectual property office. Making an application for examination of the declaration of invalidation, Claims that the plaintiff's patent right is invalid in order to achieve the purpose of not assuming liability for patent infringement. However, since the system of separation of patent administrative confirmation rights from judicial review of infringement is implemented in China, even if the defendant claims that he is using existing technology, It is also necessary to apply for invalidation of a patent to the Patent Review Board first, and fall into an extremely disadvantageous state of litigation. In 2008, the Patent Law was amended to formally establish the defense system of the existing technology in our country in the form of law, so that the defendant can directly defend the existing technology in the face of patent infringement charges. The court also does not need to suspend the lawsuit and wait for the patent review board to invalidate the examination result, it can make an independent judgment. The implementation of the existing technical defense system can effectively improve the efficiency of the litigation and alleviate the litigant's burden. At the same time, it is also conducive to curb the patentee malicious litigation. The existing technology defense system has been established in China for a short period of time, and there are still many imperfections. At present, the academic circles compare the scope of application of the existing technology defense with the order in which it is applied. From the origin of the existing technical system, this paper introduces the current judicial practice of more controversial issues, focusing on the scope of the existing technology can be used, the applicable principles, This paper studies the core problem of the standard of the establishment of the existing technology defense and hopes to provide some reference value for the development and perfection of the existing technology defense system in China. This article mainly through five chapters to introduce our country's existing technology defense system. The first part mainly introduces the basic theory of the existing technology defense system, including the concept, origin, system value and the development course of the existing technology defense system in our country. The second part mainly discusses the scope of the existing technology which can be used to defend from the three aspects of "time limit", "geographical limitation" and "whether it is known to the public". At the same time, it emphatically expounds whether the existing technology can be extended to simple combination. The point of view that the prior art used for defense can be either a separate prior art or a combination of several existing technologies is limited to a simple combination. The third part elaborates the dispute of applying the existing technology defense under the condition of equivalent infringement and the same tort condition, and introduces the United States at the same time. Japan and Germany apply the existing technology defense system under the same infringement situation. The 4th part mainly discusses the cognizance problem in the existing technology defense, including the contrast order, the cognizance standard and so on. It introduces three main viewpoints about the existing technology defense establishment standard: the novelty standard, and so on. The creative standard is the same and very close to the standard, and puts forward the construction of the contrastive standard of our country from three aspects: the legal basis, the realistic basis and the legislative basis. Part 5th mainly introduces the differences and characteristics of the existing technical defences and invalidation procedures, and provides a reference for the alleged infringers to choose coping strategies.
【學位授予單位】：煙臺大學
【學位級別】：碩士
【學位授予年份】：2014
【分類號】：D923.42;D925.1

【參考文獻】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前9條

1 楊志敏;關(guān)于“公知技術(shù)抗辯”若干問題的研究——從中、德、日三國判例與學說的對比角度[J];比較法研究;2003年02期

2 洪恩山;;我國專利法中的現(xiàn)有技術(shù)抗辯制度之探討[J];中國發(fā)明與專利;2010年03期

3 陳榮飛;;論現(xiàn)有技術(shù)抗辯在專利侵權(quán)訴訟中的適用[J];中國發(fā)明與專利;2012年01期

4 曹新明;;現(xiàn)有技術(shù)抗辯研究[J];法商研究;2010年06期

5 和育東;甫玉龍;;專利相同侵權(quán)下現(xiàn)有技術(shù)抗辯制度反思[J];法學雜志;2011年11期

6 翟文峰;張炳生;;現(xiàn)有技術(shù)抗辯的對比標準[J];中國礦業(yè)大學學報(社會科學版);2010年03期

7 袁滔;;現(xiàn)有技術(shù)抗辯適用中的若干問題[J];人民司法;2009年21期

8 王東勇;;現(xiàn)有技術(shù)抗辯的適用及賠償數(shù)額的確定[J];人民司法;2013年04期

9 溫旭;自由公知技術(shù)抗辯在專利訴訟中的應用[J];知識產(chǎn)權(quán);1997年01期

相關(guān)博士學位論文 前1條

1 徐興祥;專利侵權(quán)判定研究[D];中國政法大學;2011年

本文編號：1558559