TRIPS协议下美国相关知识产权禁令研究

发布时间：2018-08-13 20:35

【摘要】：TRPIPS协议作为国际条约,对各缔约方具有约束力。美国作为TRIPS协议成员方之一,应当从立法、司法和行政上执行TRIPS协议下的义务,但在实践中,美国对待国际条约的态度飘忽不定,隐约显现在其履行TRIPS协议义务上。美国在无成文法规定为商业利益而授予强制许可的并无司法先例的前提下,通过司法实践直接授予基于商业利益的强制许可,具体表现为美国法院在部分案件中不颁发永久禁令,并判决专利侵权人支付一次性或分期的赔偿金,或者支付将来继续使用标的专利提成费等,形成了事实上的强制许可效应。本文旨在讨论这类司法上直接为商业利益而授予类似强制许可的做法是否削弱专利的保护力度,违背TRIPS协议第二十八条项下应保护的专利专有权及许可权,以及此等事实上的强制许可的方法是否违反TRIPS协议中规定授予强制许可的实体条件以及程序条件,并就其中的法律问题以及对我国强制许可的作法提出一些看法和建议。本文的结构主要分为四个部分：第一部分主要概述TRIPS协议下的专利保护的实体义务和程序义务,包括从立法上、司法及行政上关于知识产权保护的义务,以及美国对国际法的态度。第二部分主要介绍美国的民事诉讼救济制度。第三部分主要介绍eBay案之前专利侵权案例中永久禁令的自动颁发、eBay案及其之后专利侵权案件中永久禁令不再自动颁发的转变,引出下文对所形成的事实上的强制许可效应是否削弱专利保护力度及违背第三十一条规定的强制许可制度的讨论。第四部分主要是介绍美国在司法实践中否定颁发永久禁令对我国的启示,分析我国强制许可制度的法律规定以及其中存在的问题,并建议我国从美国不颁发永久禁令的作法中吸取教训,吸收美国司法实践中事实上的强制许可制度的精华之处,完善我国的强制许可制度,促进我国科学技术进步及经济健康稳定发展,维护我国企业的合法权益。
[Abstract]:As an international treaty, the TRPIPS Agreement is binding on the parties. The United States, as a member of the TRIPS Agreement, should implement the obligations under the TRIPS Agreement from the legislative, judicial and administrative aspects. However, in practice, the attitude of the United States towards international treaties is erratic and appears vaguely in the implementation of its obligations under the TRIPS Agreement. In the United States, under the premise of granting compulsory license for commercial interests without statutory law and without judicial precedent, the compulsory license based on commercial interests is granted directly through judicial practice. In some cases, the court in the United States does not issue a permanent injunction, and the patent infringer is ordered to pay one-off or installment compensation, or to pay the royalty fee that will continue to use the underlying patent, thus forming a de facto compulsory license effect. The purpose of this paper is to discuss whether this kind of judicial practice of granting similar compulsory licences directly for the commercial benefit weakens the protection of patents and violates the patent exclusive and licensing rights to be protected under Article 28 of the TRIPS Agreement. And whether these de facto compulsory licensing methods violate the substantive and procedural conditions for the grant of compulsory licenses stipulated in the TRIPS Agreement, and put forward some views and suggestions on the legal issues and the practice of compulsory licensing in China. The structure of this paper is divided into four parts: the first part mainly summarizes the substantive and procedural obligations of patent protection under the TRIPS Agreement, including the legislative, judicial and administrative obligations on the protection of intellectual property rights. And America's attitude to international law. The second part mainly introduces the American civil litigation relief system. The third part mainly introduces the automatic issuance of the permanent injunction in the patent infringement cases before the eBay case and the change of the permanent injunctions no longer issued automatically in the patent infringement cases. The following discussion is whether the effect of de facto compulsory licensing weakens the protection of patents and violates the compulsory licensing system stipulated in Section 31. The fourth part mainly introduces the enlightenment to our country of denying the issuance of the permanent injunction in the judicial practice of the United States, and analyzes the legal provisions of the compulsory license system in our country and the problems existing therein. It is also suggested that our country should draw lessons from the practice of not issuing a permanent injunction in the United States, absorb the essence of the de facto compulsory licensing system in the judicial practice of the United States, and perfect the compulsory licensing system in our country. We will promote scientific and technological progress and the healthy and stable development of our economy and safeguard the legitimate rights and interests of our enterprises.
【学位授予单位】：复旦大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2011
【分类号】：D997.1

【相似文献】