中美专利标注规则比较研究

发布时间：2018-03-06 12:31

本文选题：专利　切入点：专利标识　出处：《华东政法大学》2012年硕士论文　论文类型：学位论文

【摘要】：中美两国立法者虽然均认同由国家最高专利管理机关发布的专利授权公告具有使公众应知某项专利权存在的公示效力，但在关于专利标注的立法上却采取了截然不同的做法。我国专利法将专利标注规定为专利权人的权利而非其义务，即使专利权人不在其生产制造的受专利权保护的产品上标注专利标识也无需承担任何不利后果。而美国专利法则规定专利权人有义务在其生产制造的受专利权保护的产品上标注专利标识以通告公众其专利权的存在，若其未能依法履行上述义务，其将不能在日后的专利侵权诉讼中获得相应的侵权损害赔偿金。显然，美国专利法的该等规定与前述专利授权公告之公示效力在立法理念上存在冲突。进而问题也就随之产生：其一，既然美国立法者承认专利授权公告具有公示效力，那么其为何还要求专利权人承担一项专利标注的义务？其二，美国立法者为专利权人设定该等专利标注的义务，并将其规定为专利权人获得相应侵权损害赔偿金的前提是否合理？其三，，美国的上述做法对我国有何借鉴意义？本文第一章开门见山，提出问题。带着上述问题，笔者遂在本文第二章和第三章分别探究了中美两国的专利标注规则，随后在本文第四章对两国的做法进行了比较研究，进而得出结论：中美两国对专利标注的不同立法模式其实与两国各自的国情有关，其亦符合两国各自知识产权保护法治建设的进程。建议我国的立法者在条件成熟时可以考虑参照美国的做法对我国的专利法进行修订。
[Abstract]:Although lawmakers in both China and the United States agree that a patent authorization notice issued by the country's top patent administration has the effect of making the public aware of the existence of a patent right, However, in the legislation on patent marking, a completely different approach has been adopted. The patent law of our country stipulates that the patent label is the right of the patentee, not the obligation of the patentee. The patentee does not have to bear any adverse consequences even if the patentee does not mark the patent mark on the patented product he produces and manufactures. And the u. S. Patent law obliges the patentee to insure the patentee of the product he produces and manufactures. The patented product is marked with a patent mark to inform the public of the existence of its patent right, If it fails to fulfill the above obligations, it will not be able to obtain the corresponding damages in the future patent infringement litigation. It is obvious that these provisions of the United States Patent Law conflict with the publicity effect of the aforementioned patent authorization notice in terms of the legislative concept. Thus, the following problems arise: first, since the United States legislator recognizes the patent authorization notice as having the publicity effect, So why does it require the patentee to assume an obligation to mark a patent? Second, is it reasonable for the American legislator to set up the obligation to label the patent for the patentee and to stipulate it as the premise for the patentee to obtain the corresponding damages for infringement? Third, what is the significance of the above-mentioned practices of the United States to our country? In the first chapter of this paper, the author puts forward some questions. With the above problems, the author explores the rules of patent labeling in China and the United States in the second and third chapters, and then makes a comparative study on the practices of the two countries in Chapter 4th of this paper. Furthermore, it is concluded that the different legislative models for patent labeling in China and the United States are actually related to the respective national conditions of the two countries. It is also in line with the process of protecting the rule of law in the two countries. It is suggested that when the conditions are ripe, the legislator of our country may consider amending the patent law of our country according to the practice of the United States.
【学位授予单位】：华东政法大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2012
【分类号】：D971.2;D923.42

【相似文献】