我国知识产权法院技术事实查明制度研究

发布时间：2018-01-29 01:37

本文关键词： 技术事实查明知识产权法院技术调查官制度　出处：《中南林业科技大学》2017年硕士论文　论文类型：学位论文

【摘要】：技术事实作为知识产权诉讼中的核心事实,调查、认定不易一直是困扰知识产权案件审判的难题。随着我国知识产权审判专业化程度加深,2014年我国北京、上海、广州相继设立知识产权专门法院,随后引入技术调查官制度,我国知识产权案件审判形成了技术调查、技术咨询、专家陪审、技术鉴定、专家辅助五种技术事实查明机制共存的格局。由于五种技术事实查明机制本身存在固有缺陷,相互之间又缺少协调,导致常常出现矛盾。准确、高效查明技术事实是提升知识产权案件审判效率和审判质量的内在需求。技术调查官有其自身优势但存在诉讼参与度不够的局限;专家辅助人所表述的技术意见不具备中立的特性;技术鉴定费用高昂,启动不易,鉴定期间旷日持久;专家咨询中的专家不参与诉讼程序以及当事人无法行使申请回避等程序权利;专家陪审对其缺位或者越权现象缺少必要的防御机制。究其共同原因是在立法层面缺少体系化的法律规定,在司法层面缺少相关的配套协调机制。借鉴大陆法系和英美法系典型国家(地区)技术事实查明制度的经验,需严格技术事实审查人员选任条件并且建立多元化的技术事实查明机制,完善我国现有五种技术事实查明制度——提升技术调查官诉讼参与度、提高技术鉴定的效率及质量、规范专家陪审制度、保持专家辅助人的中立性、建立专家陪审越权防御体制,在此基础上探究建立以技术调查官制度为核心,将该制度与技术鉴定、专家证人、专家陪审、专家辅助等制度根据案情需要灵活结合,相互配合,共同解决知识产权案件技术事实认定问题的多元机制。
[Abstract]:Technical facts as the core facts of intellectual property litigation, investigation, identification has been puzzling intellectual property cases trial problems. With the deepening of the degree of specialization of intellectual property trials in China. In 2014, Beijing, Shanghai and Guangzhou set up specialized courts of intellectual property in succession, and then introduced the system of technical investigators, which resulted in the formation of technical investigation, technical consultation and expert jury in the trial of intellectual property cases in China. Due to the inherent defects and lack of coordination among the five technical facts ascertaining mechanisms, there are often contradictions and accuracy. Efficiently ascertaining the technical facts is the inherent demand of improving the efficiency and quality of the trial of intellectual property rights cases. The technical investigation officer has its own advantages but the limitation of insufficient participation in litigation; The technical advice expressed by the expert facilitators is not neutral in nature; The technical appraisal is expensive, the starting is not easy, the appraisal period is long; Experts in the expert consultation do not participate in the proceedings and the parties can not exercise the right to apply for withdrawal and other procedural rights; The expert jury lacks the necessary defense mechanism to its absence or ultra vires phenomenon. The common reason is the lack of systematic legal provisions in the legislative level. In the judicial level there is a lack of relevant coordination mechanism. Learn from the experience of the typical countries (regions) of civil law system and Anglo-American law system. It is necessary to strictly select and appoint technical fact examiners and to establish a diversified mechanism of technical fact finding, and to perfect the existing five kinds of technological fact finding systems in China-to enhance the participation of technical investigators in litigation. On the basis of improving the efficiency and quality of technical appraisal, standardizing the system of expert jury, maintaining the neutrality of expert assistant, and establishing the defense system of expert jury, this paper probes into the establishment of technical investigator system as the core. This system and the technical appraisal expert witness expert jury expert assistant and other systems according to the needs of the case flexibly combined with each other to jointly solve the problem of intellectual property cases technical facts multiple mechanisms.
【学位授予单位】：中南林业科技大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2017
【分类号】：D923.4;D926.22

【相似文献】