本文選題：專利糾紛 + 糾紛替代解決　； 參考：《湘潭大學》2013年碩士論文

【摘要】：知識產(chǎn)權是傳統(tǒng)民法理論中的無形財產(chǎn)權，是智力勞動成果或創(chuàng)造性的精神財富。隨著信息技術的迅猛發(fā)展以及現(xiàn)代化科技時代的到來，作為知識產(chǎn)權之一的專利權的影響力不斷擴大，，由此產(chǎn)生的專利糾紛也越來越多。在傳統(tǒng)的訴訟方式已經(jīng)難以契合專利糾紛解決各種特殊要求的形勢下，美國逐步建立起的替代性糾紛解決機制更加凸顯了其優(yōu)勢，調解就是其中運用最廣泛的方式之一。調解解決專利糾紛不僅能緩解司法資源日益緊張的狀況，并且能在調解的過程中為對立的雙方尋求共同利益，維持相對良好的關系，甚至創(chuàng)造更多的發(fā)展機會。方便、快捷、高效地解決專利糾紛是每一個專利權人追求的價值目標。避開形式主義，運用簡易的程序在短時間內(nèi)解決專利糾紛，對時間周期短的專利權來說尤為重要。調解的低成本和快捷性也讓當事人得以將更多的資源投入到正常的生產(chǎn)經(jīng)營當中。美國專利糾紛調解的特點是通過各種民間調解機構進行調解，這類機構具有很強的專業(yè)性，能夠很好地幫助專利糾紛當事人進行溝通與交流，為專利糾紛的解決提供可行方案。近年來，我國的民間調解制度受到了越來越廣泛的重視，但對專利糾紛的調解卻仍然處于起步探索階段，調解解決糾紛的方式?jīng)]有被廣泛地運用起來，調解的優(yōu)勢也沒有發(fā)揮出來，現(xiàn)狀不盡如人意。因此，如何立足于我國自身特點，借鑒美國經(jīng)驗，利用調解來解決專利糾紛，讓專利糾紛調解逐漸規(guī)�；�、體系化成了亟待解決的問題。有鑒于此，本文首先介紹了美國專利糾紛調解制度的發(fā)展歷史、相關立法及調解的原則、程序，探討了美國專利糾紛調解的實踐情況，并分析了專利糾紛調解的優(yōu)勢與必要性；其次，通過了解我國專利糾紛調解的現(xiàn)狀，剖析其中存在的問題及產(chǎn)生問題的原因，并試圖結合美國專利糾紛調解制度發(fā)展的經(jīng)驗，從機構、原則、程序幾個方面對構建我國專利糾紛調解制度提出可行性建議。
[Abstract]:Intellectual property is the intangible property right in the traditional civil law theory, and it is the intellectual labor achievement or creative spiritual wealth. With the rapid development of information technology and the arrival of modern science and technology era, as one of the intellectual property rights, the impact of patent rights is expanding, resulting in more and more patent disputes. Under the situation that it is difficult for the traditional litigation methods to meet the special requirements of patent dispute resolution, the alternative dispute resolution mechanism gradually established in the United States highlights its advantages, and mediation is one of the most widely used methods. Mediation and resolution of patent disputes can not only alleviate the increasingly tight situation of judicial resources, but also seek common interests for opposing parties in the process of mediation, maintain a relatively good relationship, and even create more development opportunities. Solving patent disputes conveniently, quickly and efficiently is the value goal that every patentee pursues. Avoiding formalism and using simple procedures to solve patent disputes in a short time are particularly important for patent rights with short time periods. The low cost and rapidity of mediation also enable the parties to put more resources into normal production and operation. The characteristic of patent dispute mediation in the United States is to mediate through various folk mediation institutions, which are highly professional and can help the patent dispute parties to communicate and communicate well, and to provide feasible solutions to patent disputes. In recent years, China's folk mediation system has been paid more and more attention, but the mediation of patent disputes is still in the initial stage of exploration, mediation to resolve disputes has not been widely used. Mediation advantages have not been brought into play, the status quo is not satisfactory. Therefore, based on our own characteristics, drawing lessons from the experience of the United States, the use of mediation to resolve patent disputes, so that patent dispute mediation gradually scale, the system has become a problem to be solved. In view of this, this paper first introduces the history of patent dispute mediation system in the United States, the relevant legislation and mediation principles, procedures, discusses the practice of patent dispute mediation in the United States, and analyzes the advantages and necessity of patent dispute mediation. Secondly, through understanding the current situation of patent dispute mediation in China, analyzing the existing problems and the causes of the problems, and trying to combine the experience of the development of the patent dispute mediation system in the United States, from the institutions, principles, Several aspects of the procedure for the construction of patent dispute mediation system feasibility suggestions.
【學位授予單位】：湘潭大學
【學位級別】：碩士
【學位授予年份】：2013
【分類號】：D971.2;DD913

【參考文獻】

相關期刊論文 前8條

1 曾彤;知識產(chǎn)權糾紛的訴訟外處理[J];中華商標;2002年02期

2 江偉,廖永安;簡論人民調解協(xié)議的性質與效力[J];法學雜志;2003年02期

3 郭玉軍;孫敏潔;;美國訴訟和解與中國法院調解之比較研究[J];法學評論;2006年02期

4 樊培棟;;論ADR在知識產(chǎn)權糾紛解決中的應用[J];科學之友(B版);2007年11期

5 俞曉霞,金亦紅;重構知識產(chǎn)權訴訟調解制度[J];人民司法;2002年10期

6 李廣輝,孫永軍;關于大調解之法理思考[J];汕頭大學學報;2002年03期

7 范愉;當代中國非訴訟糾紛解決機制的完善與發(fā)展[J];學海;2003年01期

8 廖永安;訴訟內(nèi)外糾紛解決機制的協(xié)調與整合[J];云南大學學報(法學版);2004年03期

本文編號：1810422