网络交易平台的专利侵权责任研究

发布时间：2018-05-16 17:25

本文选题：网络交易平台 + 专利侵权　；参考：《中州学刊》2017年08期

【摘要】：我国《侵权责任法》第36条引入了美国《数字千年版权法》中的避风港规则,该规则能否在专利领域适用备受争议。将该规则适用于专利领域面临诸多困境,如网络交易平台有限的审查能力难以应对专利审查的复杂性,一些人会滥用该规则进行恶意市场竞争。基于专利的技术性、专利侵权认定的复杂性,网络环境下的专利侵权治理模式应由网络服务提供者中心主义转向网络用户中心主义,网络交易平台承担责任的规则应由"通知—删除"规则转变为"通知—转通知"规则。在我国《专利法》尚未作相应修订的前提下,法院在审理专利案件的过程中可对我国《侵权责任法》第36条的"必要措施"作扩大解释,要求不同类型的网络服务提供者承担相应的侵权责任。
[Abstract]:Article 36 of our country's Tort liability Act introduces the safe haven rule in the Digital Millennium copyright Law of the United States, and whether the rule can be applied in the field of patent is controversial. There are many difficulties in applying this rule to the patent field, such as the limited ability of the online trading platform to deal with the complexity of patent examination, and some people will abuse the rule to compete in the malicious market. Based on the technology of patent and the complexity of patent infringement, the governance mode of patent infringement in network environment should be changed from network service provider centeredness to network user centeredness. Online trading platform liability rules should be changed from "Notification-Delete" rule to "Notification-transfer notice" rule. On the premise that the Patent Law of our country has not been amended accordingly, the court may expand the interpretation of the "necessary measures" in Article 36 of our country's "Tort liability Law" in the course of handling patent cases. Different types of network service providers are required to bear the corresponding tort liability.
【作者单位】：广东金融学院法学院;华东政法大学知识产权研究中心;
【基金】：广东省知识产权局软科学研究计划项目“知识产权规则创新与‘互联网+’电子商务发展研究——以电子商务平台的专利侵权为中心”(GDIP2016—K8)
【分类号】：D923.42

【相似文献】