专利侵权中“为生产经营目的”的认定

发布时间：2018-01-21 08:06

本文关键词： 专利侵权为生产经营目的单位公共利益　出处：《清华大学》2015年硕士论文　论文类型：学位论文

【摘要】：在我国《专利法》中“为生产经营目的”作为认定侵权的构成要件之一,长期以来并未受到理论界和司法实践的重视。司法实践中对这一要件的认定观点并不统一,甚至出现相反的结论。法院在考虑这一要件时对单位的认定以及单位是否需要构成“为业”上观点并不相同。实践中,对于不以出售为目的的制造行为、使用行为以及不以出售为目的的进口行为,是认定是否构成“为生产经营目的”的主要争议点所在。本文通过对专利法基本理论、对“为生产经营目的”的学理研究、司法解释以及对司法案例的全面梳理,通过比较国外立法的规定,并对主要的争议问题进行了讨论,以对明晰“为生产经营目的”的解释和适用。本文初步得出的结论为:“为生产经营目的”应当做广义理解;企业只有在测试专利方案是否可行时不构成“为生产经营目的”,行政机关和事业单位无法以公共利益抗辩其不构成“为生产经营目的”。本文总共七章,首先由司法实践的案例引出在认定“为生产经营目的”上出现的问题;其次梳理本国学界、司法解释对该问题的基本认识;再次比较国外相似立法,得出并不能完全借鉴“私下且非商业性目的”例外的结论;第四,从专利法的基本原理和产业政策方面得出需对“为生产经营目的”做广义理解的结论;第五,对认定本问题时出现的主要争议点进行阐述;最后总结出本文的结论。由于“为生产经营目的”的表述本身存在一定的模糊性,本文呼吁将来的立法对该表述进行一定的修改,以明确其内涵。
[Abstract]:In the Patent Law of our country, "for the purpose of production and operation" is regarded as one of the constitutive requirements for the determination of infringement. For a long time, it has not been paid attention to by the theoretical circle and judicial practice. There is even a contrary conclusion. In considering this element, the court has different views on the determination of the unit and whether or not the unit needs to constitute "for the purpose of business." in practice, there is a difference in the case of a manufacturing act which is not intended for the purpose of sale. The use behavior and the import behavior which does not take the sale as the purpose, is the main dispute point which determines whether to constitute "for the production and operation purpose". This article passes to the patent law basic theory. This paper studies the theory of "for the purpose of production and management", judicial interpretation and the comprehensive combing of judicial cases, through comparing the provisions of foreign legislation, and discusses the main controversial issues. Based on the interpretation and application of "for the purpose of production and operation", this paper draws the following conclusions: "for the purpose of production and operation" should be understood in a broad sense; Only when the enterprise tests whether the patent scheme is feasible or not, it does not constitute "for the purpose of production and operation", and the administrative organs and institutions cannot defend it with the public interest which does not constitute "for the purpose of production and operation". There are seven chapters in this paper. First of all, the case of judicial practice leads to the problems in the identification of "for the purpose of production and management"; Secondly, combing the basic understanding of this problem in the academic circles of our country, the judicial interpretation; Comparing the similar legislation of foreign countries again, we can draw the conclusion that the exception of "private and non-commercial purpose" can not be completely used for reference; 4th, from the patent law basic principle and the industrial policy aspect obtains the conclusion which needs to make the broad understanding to "for the production management purpose"; 5th, to confirm this question the main dispute point that appears carries on the elaboration; Finally, the conclusion of this paper is summarized. Due to the fuzziness of the expression "for the purpose of production and operation", this paper calls for future legislation to modify the expression to clarify its connotation.
【学位授予单位】：清华大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2015
【分类号】：D923.42

【相似文献】