论专利领域等同侵权的判断规则

发布时间：2018-06-19 10:08

本文选题：等同侵权 + 技术特征　；参考：《吉林大学》2017年硕士论文

【摘要】：专利制度形成初期,专利侵权的方式基本上都是照抄被侵权专利,随着技术的发展,出现了各种可供选择的替代技术特征,最终实现的技术效果相同,若是严格根据权利要求书的文字表述,无法满足对专利权人的保护,从而会阻碍技术创新的积极性,等同侵权的出现成为必然。等同侵权是侵权的一种,但它与一般侵权相比具有特殊性,首先在于归责原则的特殊性,对于专利侵权归责原则采用过错原则、过错推定原则还是无过错原则,理论上存在争议。等同侵权的设立是为了限制简单技术特征替换的行为,鼓励创新,同时专利权客体的无形性,为了达到设立等同侵权的目的,无过错原则更加适合于等同侵权。等同侵权的加害行为包括实质要件和形式要件,实质要件指的是技术特征,在一般侵权中不存在。形式要件和一般侵权具有区别,等同侵权的形式要件是采用列举式,如果没有出现在列举中,就不会成为等同侵权的加害行为。在专利权的保护程序中,必须衡量好权利人和社会公众的利益,稍有失衡,将会阻碍技术进步。等同侵权的适用加大了专利权的保护范畴,同时使侵权判定变的更加主观化。专利是由技术方案构成的,技术方案是由技术特征组成的,所以技术特征是专利的最小组成单元,那么技术特征的划分成为等同侵权判定中最重要的一步。要求被诉侵权技术方案包含与权利要求记录的所有技术特征相同或者类似的技术特征,同时必须达到三个基本,即以基本相同的手段、功能、效果。虽然明确规定了全部技术特征比对确定侵权的方法,但是法律规定的不统一,出现了非必要技术特征的规定,通过省略非必要技术特征达到等同侵权,在权利要求中,技术特征数目越少,保护的范畴越广,等同的技术特征已经扩大了专利的保护范畴,如果再通过省略非必要技术特征,那么专利的保护范畴更加扩大化了,明显不合理。对于是单个技术特征产生的技术效果还是技术方案整体产生的技术效果通过法条不能确定无疑的得出,二者对专利的保护范围大小不同,单个技术特征产生的技术效果保护的范围明显小于技术方案整体产生的效果,根据利益平衡和国家不能主动保护专利权人利益的原则,应该选择适用保护范畴小的单个技术特征产生的效果。等同侵权的判定和专利创造性的规定貌似有相似性,但不能因为具有相似之处,就认为等同侵权的判定与创造性的判定相同,它们之间至少存在两个重要的差异:其一,创造性判断常常是将两份或是多份对比文献中记录的现有技术组合起来与权利要求的内容进行对比,其二,创造性的判定要求将权利要求的内容作为一个整体来对待,而等同侵权偏重对单个技术特征进行逐个比较分析。不仅对等同侵权成立判定方法上严格规定,即使等同侵权成立,也能通过禁止反悔规则、捐献规则、公知技术抗辩等推翻。专利申请过程或者无效宣告过程,专利申请人或者专利权人对权利要求的修改都不会被公布出来,公告的是最终的结果,所以禁止反悔规则所需要的证据由国家知识产权局保存,需要时必须申请查阅和复制,一般人不容易做到,但对于法院和相关专利部门可以轻易的获取,法院在审判中可以主动适用。说明书中包含很多的技术方案和实施例,但是权利人不一定都在权利要求书中将它们写入,按照捐献规则,没有记入权利要求书中的技术方案和实施例就得不到保护,排除了等同侵权的适用,相当于捐献给社会,那么这种规则会限制权利人在说明书中写入多的技术方案和实施例,这将对社会是一种损失,所以要谨慎适用捐献规则。公知技术抗辩选择适用有些复杂,因为涉案专利的技术特征有等同的空间,现有技术特征也有等同空间,此时选择专利的无效还是现有技术抗辩,现有技术抗辩更加方便。
[Abstract]:At the beginning of the formation of the patent system, the mode of patent infringement is basically the copy of the infringed patent. With the development of the technology, there are various features of alternative technology that can be chosen. The final realization of the technical effect is the same. If it is strictly based on the text of the claim book, it can not meet the protection of the patent holder, which will impede the technology creation. New enthusiasm, the emergence of equivalent torts is inevitable. Equivalent tort is a kind of tort, but it is special in comparison with the general tort, first of all, the particularity of the principle of imputation, the principle of fault, the principle of fault presumption or the principle of no fault, and the establishment of the equivalent torts. In order to achieve the purpose of establishing the same infringement, the principle of no fault is more suitable for the equivalent infringement. The injuring behavior of the equivalent tort includes the substantive and the form elements, and the essence of the infringement is technical characteristics, and it does not exist in the general tort. The form element of the type of tort is different from that of the general tort. The form element of the equivalent tort is an enumerated form. If it does not appear in the enumeration, it will not become an act of injuring the equivalent tort. In the patent protection procedure, it is necessary to measure the interests of the right holder and the public, and it will impede the technological progress. The protection category of patent right has been enlarged, and the judgment of infringement is changed more subjectively. The patent is made up of technical scheme, and the technical scheme is composed of technical features. So the technical feature is the smallest component of the patent. Then the division of the technical characteristics is the most important step in the equivalent infringement judgment. The case contains the same or similar technical features recorded with all the technical features recorded in the claim. At the same time, it must reach three basic, that is, the basic same means, functions, and effects. Although it clearly stipulates all the technical features compared to the method of determining the tort, the legal provisions are not unified, and the unnecessary technical characteristics have appeared. In the requirement of right, the less technical characteristics, the less the number of technical features and the wider scope of protection, the equivalent technical features have expanded the scope of patent protection. If the non essential technical features are omitted, the scope of patent protection is more enlarged and unreasonable. It is a single technology. The technical effect produced by the characteristics or the technical effect produced by the technical scheme can not be determined by the law. The scope of the two protection of the patent is different. The scope of the protection of the technical effect produced by the individual technical features is obviously smaller than the result of the overall technical scheme. The principle of protecting the interests of the patented person should choose the effect of the individual technical characteristics that apply to the small category of protection. It is similar to the judgment of the equivalent tort and the provisions of the patent creativity. But it can not be found that the judgment of the equivalent tort is the same as the creative judgment, and there are at least two important differences between them. Differences: first, the creative judgment often compares the existing technology recorded in the two or many comparative documents with the content of the claim. Secondly, the creative judgment requires the content of the rights to be treated as a whole, and the equivalent tort bias makes a comparative analysis of the individual technical characteristics. It is strictly stipulated in the determination method of the establishment of equal tort. Even if the equivalent infringement is established, it can also be overturned by prohibiting the rules of reprop, the rule of donation, the known technical defense and so on. The patent applicant or the patent holder will not be published in the process of the patent application or the invalidation of the claims. The announcement is the final knot. As a result, the evidence required for the prohibition of remission rules is preserved by the State Intellectual Property Office. It is necessary to apply for inspection and reproduction when required. It is not easy for the general person to do it, but it can be easily obtained by the court and related patent departments, and the court can apply it actively in the trial. There are many technical solutions and examples in the instruction, but the rights are included. People do not always write them in the book of claims. In accordance with the rules of donation, the technical scheme and the implementation of the claims are not protected, and the application of the equivalent infringement is excluded, which is equivalent to the society. It is a kind of loss to the society, so it is necessary to apply the rule of donation carefully. It is known that the selection of technical defense is a bit complicated, because the technical characteristics of the patent involved in the case have the same space, the existing technical characteristics also have the same space. At this time, the choice of the patent is invalid or the existing technology defense, and the existing technical defense is more convenient.
【学位授予单位】：吉林大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2017
【分类号】：D923.42

【参考文献】