現(xiàn)有技術(shù)抗辯對(duì)比標(biāo)準(zhǔn)研究
發(fā)布時(shí)間：2018-11-14 21:00
【摘要】：根據(jù)專利的基本原理，專利公開(kāi)后進(jìn)入公眾領(lǐng)域，任何人均享有獲取該專利內(nèi)容的權(quán)益，作為對(duì)價(jià)，專利權(quán)人獲得了很強(qiáng)的獨(dú)占實(shí)施權(quán)，不當(dāng)授權(quán)的瑕疵專利授權(quán)后會(huì)對(duì)公共利益造成侵害，理應(yīng)被宣告無(wú)效。我國(guó)在專利侵權(quán)和專利無(wú)效實(shí)行的是雙軌制，即職權(quán)分離主義。國(guó)家知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)局專利復(fù)審委員會(huì)是唯一受理專利無(wú)效的機(jī)構(gòu)，人民法院無(wú)權(quán)對(duì)專利的無(wú)效做出宣告，而且人民法院都是基于專利有效前提進(jìn)行侵權(quán)審理的。被告人在專利侵權(quán)案件審理中要宣告專利權(quán)無(wú)效只能向?qū)＠麖?fù)審委員會(huì)提起，并且根據(jù)受理文件及證據(jù)暫時(shí)請(qǐng)求人民法院裁定中止審理案件。2008年《專利法》的第三次修改將“現(xiàn)有技術(shù)抗辯”制度正式上升到法律層面進(jìn)行架構(gòu)，一定程度上緩解了因提出無(wú)效宣告造成的侵權(quán)案件審理周期長(zhǎng)的問(wèn)題，被告可以及時(shí)擺脫訴累，快速的投入生產(chǎn)經(jīng)營(yíng)之中。司法解釋對(duì)現(xiàn)有技術(shù)抗辯的對(duì)比方式做出了規(guī)定,但是在現(xiàn)有技術(shù)抗辯對(duì)比標(biāo)準(zhǔn)的細(xì)節(jié)性問(wèn)題上，司法解釋用詞的模糊性使得該規(guī)定在理論上沒(méi)有達(dá)成統(tǒng)一認(rèn)識(shí)，在司法判例中也沒(méi)有產(chǎn)生執(zhí)行標(biāo)準(zhǔn)。2012年最高法發(fā)布的“澤田公司與格瑞特公司侵犯實(shí)用新型專利糾紛”一案采用相同或等同標(biāo)準(zhǔn)判斷現(xiàn)有技術(shù)抗辯是否成立，對(duì)現(xiàn)有技術(shù)抗辯對(duì)比標(biāo)準(zhǔn)的研究具有重要的借鑒意義。本文結(jié)合該專利糾紛一案，，運(yùn)用比較研究方法從理論和司法實(shí)務(wù)角度對(duì)現(xiàn)有技術(shù)抗辯的對(duì)比標(biāo)準(zhǔn)進(jìn)行應(yīng)用性研究，以期尋找專利權(quán)人和公眾之間的利益平衡點(diǎn)。 本文主要通過(guò)四個(gè)部分對(duì)現(xiàn)有技術(shù)抗辯對(duì)比標(biāo)準(zhǔn)在專利侵權(quán)中的應(yīng)用進(jìn)行論述。首先，對(duì)“澤田公司與格瑞特公司之間的實(shí)用新型專利糾紛一案”的案情進(jìn)行介紹，了解不同級(jí)別法院對(duì)本案的司法裁判，明確本案的爭(zhēng)議專利技術(shù)特征和當(dāng)事人之間的訴訟爭(zhēng)議點(diǎn)。進(jìn)而得出本文爭(zhēng)議的焦點(diǎn)在于采用什么現(xiàn)有技術(shù)抗辯對(duì)比標(biāo)準(zhǔn)來(lái)平衡公共利益與專利權(quán)人的權(quán)利；其次，介紹國(guó)內(nèi)現(xiàn)有技術(shù)抗辯對(duì)比標(biāo)準(zhǔn)的不同理論觀點(diǎn)，主要觀點(diǎn)有無(wú)新穎性標(biāo)準(zhǔn)、明顯近似標(biāo)準(zhǔn)、等同標(biāo)準(zhǔn)、創(chuàng)造性標(biāo)準(zhǔn)等，四種對(duì)比標(biāo)準(zhǔn)所包含的范圍是層層擴(kuò)大的；然后結(jié)合對(duì)四種觀點(diǎn)和專利侵權(quán)領(lǐng)域現(xiàn)有技術(shù)抗辯的理解深入闡釋各觀點(diǎn)的合理性與不足之處。再次，借用專利審查領(lǐng)域進(jìn)行技術(shù)對(duì)比的新穎性、創(chuàng)造性和專利侵權(quán)領(lǐng)域進(jìn)行技術(shù)對(duì)比的相同或等同的判斷標(biāo)準(zhǔn)，并結(jié)合上文的分析和本人對(duì)于專利法及相關(guān)司法解釋的思考，闡述關(guān)于等同標(biāo)準(zhǔn)所涉及到的問(wèn)題；最后，對(duì)比分析德國(guó)、日本、美國(guó)的現(xiàn)有技術(shù)抗辯，得出三國(guó)的現(xiàn)有技術(shù)抗辯對(duì)比標(biāo)準(zhǔn)是創(chuàng)造性標(biāo)準(zhǔn)；然后對(duì)該標(biāo)準(zhǔn)作本土化分析，探討該標(biāo)準(zhǔn)在我國(guó)目前的可行性，在此基礎(chǔ)上總結(jié)該標(biāo)準(zhǔn)在我國(guó)適用的必備因素。
[Abstract]:According to the basic principles of the patent, after the patent has been made public, anyone has the right to acquire the content of the patent. As a counterconsideration, the patentee has obtained a strong monopoly. Improper licensing of defective patents will infringe upon the public interest and should be declared null and void. In our country, patent infringement and patent invalidation are two-track system, that is, power separatism. The Patent Reexamination Board of the State intellectual property Office is the only institution that accepts the invalidation of the patent, and the people's court has no right to declare the invalidation of the patent, and the people's court tries the infringement on the basis of the valid premise of the patent. If the defendant wishes to declare the patent right invalid in the case of patent infringement, he can only file it with the Patent Reexamination Board. The third revision of the Patent Law in 2008 formally raised the "defense of existing technology" system to the legal level to carry out a framework. To some extent, it alleviates the problem of long trial period of tort cases caused by invalid declaration, and the defendant can get rid of the tiredness in time and put into production and operation quickly. The judicial interpretation has made the stipulation to the contrast way of the existing technology defense, but in the detail question of the contrast standard of the existing technology defense, the ambiguity of the judicial interpretation words makes this stipulation have not reached the unified understanding in theory. There is no enforcement standard in judicial precedents. The 2012 Supreme Law case, "the patent dispute between Satoshi and Gretel against utility models," applies the same or equivalent criteria to determine whether the existing technical defences are valid. The research on the contrast standard of existing technology defense has important reference significance. Combined with the patent dispute case, this paper applies the comparative research method to the comparative standard of the existing technical defences from the angle of theory and judicial practice, in order to find the balance of interests between the patentee and the public. This paper mainly discusses the application of the contrast standard of existing technology defense in patent infringement through four parts. First of all, to introduce the case of the utility model patent dispute between Zetan and Gretel, and to understand the judicial decisions of different levels of courts in this case. Clarify the technical features of the dispute patent and the dispute points between the parties. Furthermore, the focus of this paper is to balance the public interest and the patentee's rights by adopting the standard of contrast of the existing technology defense. Secondly, it introduces the different theoretical viewpoints of the contrast standard of the existing technology in China. The main viewpoints are whether the novelty standard, the obvious approximate standard, the equivalent standard, the creative standard and so on. The scope of the four kinds of contrast standards is expanded layer by layer. Then, it explains the rationality and deficiency of the four viewpoints and the existing technology defense in patent infringement field. Thirdly, using the novelty of technology comparison in the field of patent examination, the same or equivalent judgment standard of technical comparison in the field of creativity and patent infringement, and combining with the above analysis and my own thinking on patent law and related judicial interpretation, (B) to elaborate on the issues involved in the criterion of equivalence; Finally, by comparing and analyzing the existing technology defense of Germany, Japan and the United States, it is concluded that the contrast standard of the existing technology defense of the three countries is the creative standard. Then the localization analysis of the standard is made, and the feasibility of the standard in our country is discussed, and the necessary factors for the application of the standard in our country are summarized.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：西南政法大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2014
【分類號(hào)】：D923.42
本文編號(hào)：2332291
[Abstract]:According to the basic principles of the patent, after the patent has been made public, anyone has the right to acquire the content of the patent. As a counterconsideration, the patentee has obtained a strong monopoly. Improper licensing of defective patents will infringe upon the public interest and should be declared null and void. In our country, patent infringement and patent invalidation are two-track system, that is, power separatism. The Patent Reexamination Board of the State intellectual property Office is the only institution that accepts the invalidation of the patent, and the people's court has no right to declare the invalidation of the patent, and the people's court tries the infringement on the basis of the valid premise of the patent. If the defendant wishes to declare the patent right invalid in the case of patent infringement, he can only file it with the Patent Reexamination Board. The third revision of the Patent Law in 2008 formally raised the "defense of existing technology" system to the legal level to carry out a framework. To some extent, it alleviates the problem of long trial period of tort cases caused by invalid declaration, and the defendant can get rid of the tiredness in time and put into production and operation quickly. The judicial interpretation has made the stipulation to the contrast way of the existing technology defense, but in the detail question of the contrast standard of the existing technology defense, the ambiguity of the judicial interpretation words makes this stipulation have not reached the unified understanding in theory. There is no enforcement standard in judicial precedents. The 2012 Supreme Law case, "the patent dispute between Satoshi and Gretel against utility models," applies the same or equivalent criteria to determine whether the existing technical defences are valid. The research on the contrast standard of existing technology defense has important reference significance. Combined with the patent dispute case, this paper applies the comparative research method to the comparative standard of the existing technical defences from the angle of theory and judicial practice, in order to find the balance of interests between the patentee and the public. This paper mainly discusses the application of the contrast standard of existing technology defense in patent infringement through four parts. First of all, to introduce the case of the utility model patent dispute between Zetan and Gretel, and to understand the judicial decisions of different levels of courts in this case. Clarify the technical features of the dispute patent and the dispute points between the parties. Furthermore, the focus of this paper is to balance the public interest and the patentee's rights by adopting the standard of contrast of the existing technology defense. Secondly, it introduces the different theoretical viewpoints of the contrast standard of the existing technology in China. The main viewpoints are whether the novelty standard, the obvious approximate standard, the equivalent standard, the creative standard and so on. The scope of the four kinds of contrast standards is expanded layer by layer. Then, it explains the rationality and deficiency of the four viewpoints and the existing technology defense in patent infringement field. Thirdly, using the novelty of technology comparison in the field of patent examination, the same or equivalent judgment standard of technical comparison in the field of creativity and patent infringement, and combining with the above analysis and my own thinking on patent law and related judicial interpretation, (B) to elaborate on the issues involved in the criterion of equivalence; Finally, by comparing and analyzing the existing technology defense of Germany, Japan and the United States, it is concluded that the contrast standard of the existing technology defense of the three countries is the creative standard. Then the localization analysis of the standard is made, and the feasibility of the standard in our country is discussed, and the necessary factors for the application of the standard in our country are summarized.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：西南政法大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2014
【分類號(hào)】：D923.42
【參考文獻(xiàn)】
相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條
1 楊志敏;關(guān)于“公知技術(shù)抗辯”若干問(wèn)題的研究——從中、德、日三國(guó)判例與學(xué)說(shuō)的對(duì)比角度[J];比較法研究;2003年02期
2 馮曉青;;知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)法目的與利益平衡關(guān)系的實(shí)證分析——以美國(guó)《憲法》知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)條款為例[J];北京科技大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2008年03期
3 雷艷珍;楊玉新;;美國(guó)專利法中的現(xiàn)有技術(shù)抗辯[J];電子知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán);2010年03期
4 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(guó)發(fā)明與專利;2012年01期
5 翟文峰;張炳生;;現(xiàn)有技術(shù)抗辯的對(duì)比標(biāo)準(zhǔn)[J];中國(guó)礦業(yè)大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2010年03期
6 吳勝華;;等同原則的適用及限制——以規(guī)制專利權(quán)濫用為視角[J];科技與法律;2010年03期
7 張中華;;專利實(shí)務(wù)中的現(xiàn)有技術(shù)抗辯[J];江蘇科技信息;2013年01期
8 譚筱清;已有公知技術(shù)抗辯原則在專利侵權(quán)訴訟中的運(yùn)用[J];人民司法;2002年08期
9 雷艷珍;;中美現(xiàn)有技術(shù)抗辯制度之比較[J];河南省政法管理干部學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2010年01期
10 孫振嘉;孫放;張曉輝;;中日《專利法》比較研究[J];情報(bào)科學(xué);2012年11期
本文編號(hào)：2332291
本文鏈接：http://www.sikaile.net/falvlunwen/zhishichanquanfa/2332291.html
最近更新
教材專著
