知识产权法律纠纷的仲裁解决机制研究
发布时间：2018-09-07 15:47
【摘要】：随着知识经济发展的日趋深入,近年来我国的知识产权纠纷出现了井喷式增长。对法院而言大量的知识产权诉讼是难以消化的沉重负担,对当事人而言知识产权诉讼也是花费巨大耗时漫长的过程,在此情形下,有必要针对知识产权法律纠纷的自身特点来寻求诉讼外替代性争端解决机制。这既是对知识产权相关争议解决难题的必然回应,也是对构建多元化民商事法律纠纷解决机制的有益尝试。大力发展知识产权仲裁对我国构建多元化的知识产权争议解决机制,缓解大量频发的知识产权案件对于市场正常秩序所带来的巨大负荷,促进我国知识经济健康有序发展,建设知识产权强国都将具有重大意义。理论上,从功利性角度而言,仲裁以其专业性、保密性、快捷性、灵活性等特点与知识产权争议解决的特殊需求深度契合,从而在知识产权争议解决领域存在巨大潜力,应当发挥节约社会成本,促进社会交易的积极作用;从私权神圣角度而言,私权作为知识产权的本质属性,当事人对于知识产权的处分应当充分尊重其意思自治,而在此处意思自治原则理应包含选择争议解决方式的可能与自由,从而彰显私权神圣的法律追求,进而体现法律保障公民自由之价值。实践中,我国目前知识产权仲裁的现实发展状况不容乐观,一是专门解决此类争议的仲裁机构数量较少并且其独立性与专业性也难以得到保证;二是整个仲裁行业的知识产权争议受案量少;三是知识产权仲裁案件的受案类型单一,主要集中在合同争议,而侵权争议与有效性争议很少涉及或基本没有涉及。因为知识产权法中公共政策背影浓重限制了可仲裁案件类型,仲裁临时措施规定粗拙影响了权利人对不法侵害的迅速制止,仲裁诉讼化倾向导致争议解决速率降低等原因,致使我国知识产权仲裁的发展却并不理想,从而难以实现制度设计本应体现的功利价值与社会价值。因此,有必要通过系列举措打破理论设想与实践操作之间的隔膜,破除我国目前知识产权仲裁所面临的困境,推动知识产权仲裁的深入发展。例如,在严格配套制度下适当扩大知识产权仲裁受案范围,明确规定合同及侵权争议的可仲裁性,尝试允许有效性争议可提请仲裁解决,但明确规定裁决效力的闭锁性,当事人不得在本案以外援引相关裁决作为效力认定的证据;进一步完善临时措施相关规定,允许仲裁庭发布不具有绝对强制性效力的临时措施决定,以不利裁决之推定促使当事人主动履行相关决定;帮助纠纷当事人通过选择适用快速仲裁程序、制定个案化的仲裁规则等方式加快仲裁程序进程。
[Abstract]:With the development of knowledge economy, the intellectual property disputes in our country have increased by blowout in recent years. A large number of intellectual property litigation is an indigestible heavy burden to the court, and to the parties intellectual property litigation is also a time-consuming and lengthy process, in which case, It is necessary to seek alternative dispute settlement mechanism outside litigation according to the characteristics of intellectual property disputes. This is not only an inevitable response to the problem of intellectual property dispute resolution, but also a beneficial attempt to build a diversified civil and commercial legal dispute resolution mechanism. Vigorously develop intellectual property arbitration to build a diversified mechanism of intellectual property dispute settlement in China, alleviate the enormous burden brought by a large number of frequent intellectual property cases to the normal order of the market, and promote the healthy and orderly development of the knowledge economy in China. It will be of great significance to build a powerful intellectual property power. Theoretically, from a utilitarian point of view, arbitration has the characteristics of professionalism, confidentiality, quickness, flexibility and so on, which are closely related to the special needs of intellectual property dispute resolution, and thus have great potential in the field of intellectual property dispute settlement. We should play a positive role in saving social costs and promoting social transactions. From the perspective of private rights, private rights as the essential attribute of intellectual property rights, the parties should fully respect their autonomy in the disposition of intellectual property rights. Here, the principle of autonomy of meaning should include the possibility and freedom of choosing the way of dispute resolution, thus showing the sacred legal pursuit of private rights, and thus reflecting the value of legal protection of civil liberties. In practice, the current situation of intellectual property arbitration in China is not optimistic. First, the number of arbitration institutions specialized in resolving such disputes is relatively small, and its independence and professionalism are difficult to guarantee; The second is the small number of intellectual property disputes in the whole arbitration industry; the third is the single type of cases in intellectual property arbitration cases, mainly focused on contract disputes, while the infringement dispute and validity dispute are rarely or basically not involved. Because the public policy in the intellectual property law strongly restricts the type of arbitrable cases, the rough provisions of the interim measures of arbitration have affected the obligee to stop the illegal infringement quickly, and the tendency of arbitration litigation has led to the reduction of the rate of dispute settlement, and so on. As a result, the development of intellectual property arbitration in China is not ideal, so it is difficult to realize the utilitarian value and social value that should be embodied in the system design. Therefore, it is necessary to break the gap between theoretical assumption and practical operation through a series of measures, to break down the predicament of intellectual property arbitration in our country at present, and to promote the further development of intellectual property arbitration. For example, under a strict matching system, the scope of intellectual property arbitration cases should be appropriately expanded, the arbitrability of contracts and infringement disputes should be clearly defined, and an attempt should be made to allow valid disputes to be submitted to arbitration for settlement, but to specify the blocking nature of the validity of the award. The parties may not invoke the relevant award as evidence of validity outside the case; further improve the relevant provisions on interim measures and allow the arbitral tribunal to issue decisions on interim measures that do not have absolute mandatory effect, The presumption of adverse award urges the parties to take the initiative to perform the relevant decisions, and helps the parties to the dispute to speed up the process of arbitration by choosing to apply the expedited arbitration procedure and formulating the arbitration rules on a case-by-case basis.
【学位授予单位】：北京邮电大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2017
【分类号】：D923.4;D925.7
本文编号：2228697
[Abstract]:With the development of knowledge economy, the intellectual property disputes in our country have increased by blowout in recent years. A large number of intellectual property litigation is an indigestible heavy burden to the court, and to the parties intellectual property litigation is also a time-consuming and lengthy process, in which case, It is necessary to seek alternative dispute settlement mechanism outside litigation according to the characteristics of intellectual property disputes. This is not only an inevitable response to the problem of intellectual property dispute resolution, but also a beneficial attempt to build a diversified civil and commercial legal dispute resolution mechanism. Vigorously develop intellectual property arbitration to build a diversified mechanism of intellectual property dispute settlement in China, alleviate the enormous burden brought by a large number of frequent intellectual property cases to the normal order of the market, and promote the healthy and orderly development of the knowledge economy in China. It will be of great significance to build a powerful intellectual property power. Theoretically, from a utilitarian point of view, arbitration has the characteristics of professionalism, confidentiality, quickness, flexibility and so on, which are closely related to the special needs of intellectual property dispute resolution, and thus have great potential in the field of intellectual property dispute settlement. We should play a positive role in saving social costs and promoting social transactions. From the perspective of private rights, private rights as the essential attribute of intellectual property rights, the parties should fully respect their autonomy in the disposition of intellectual property rights. Here, the principle of autonomy of meaning should include the possibility and freedom of choosing the way of dispute resolution, thus showing the sacred legal pursuit of private rights, and thus reflecting the value of legal protection of civil liberties. In practice, the current situation of intellectual property arbitration in China is not optimistic. First, the number of arbitration institutions specialized in resolving such disputes is relatively small, and its independence and professionalism are difficult to guarantee; The second is the small number of intellectual property disputes in the whole arbitration industry; the third is the single type of cases in intellectual property arbitration cases, mainly focused on contract disputes, while the infringement dispute and validity dispute are rarely or basically not involved. Because the public policy in the intellectual property law strongly restricts the type of arbitrable cases, the rough provisions of the interim measures of arbitration have affected the obligee to stop the illegal infringement quickly, and the tendency of arbitration litigation has led to the reduction of the rate of dispute settlement, and so on. As a result, the development of intellectual property arbitration in China is not ideal, so it is difficult to realize the utilitarian value and social value that should be embodied in the system design. Therefore, it is necessary to break the gap between theoretical assumption and practical operation through a series of measures, to break down the predicament of intellectual property arbitration in our country at present, and to promote the further development of intellectual property arbitration. For example, under a strict matching system, the scope of intellectual property arbitration cases should be appropriately expanded, the arbitrability of contracts and infringement disputes should be clearly defined, and an attempt should be made to allow valid disputes to be submitted to arbitration for settlement, but to specify the blocking nature of the validity of the award. The parties may not invoke the relevant award as evidence of validity outside the case; further improve the relevant provisions on interim measures and allow the arbitral tribunal to issue decisions on interim measures that do not have absolute mandatory effect, The presumption of adverse award urges the parties to take the initiative to perform the relevant decisions, and helps the parties to the dispute to speed up the process of arbitration by choosing to apply the expedited arbitration procedure and formulating the arbitration rules on a case-by-case basis.
【学位授予单位】：北京邮电大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2017
【分类号】：D923.4;D925.7
【参考文献】
相关期刊论文 前10条
1 张圣翠;;论我国仲裁保全措施制度的重构[J];上海财经大学学报;2016年02期
2 袁发强;;自贸区仲裁规则的冷静思考[J];上海财经大学学报;2015年02期
3 李晶;;国际商事仲裁中临时措施在中国的新发展——以民诉法修改和仲裁规则修订为视角[J];西北大学学报(哲学社会科学版);2014年06期
4 张林;刘永光;;日本知识产权纠纷的仲裁解决机制——兼论我国知识产权纠纷仲裁的困境与出路[J];日本研究;2014年03期
5 房沫;;仲裁庭组成前的临时救济措施——以新加坡国际仲裁中心仲裁规则为视角[J];社会科学家;2013年06期
6 顾艳钰;;知识产权侵权纠纷可仲裁性问题探析[J];成都行政学院学报;2012年04期
7 宋秋婵;;论商事仲裁临时措施裁定权归属中法院与仲裁庭的“伙伴关系”[J];仲裁研究;2010年04期
8 张卫彬;;快车道仲裁规则的比较及借鉴[J];政法论丛;2010年06期
9 严红;张洁;;浅析我国国际商事仲裁临时措施的决定权分配[J];特区经济;2010年10期
10 王显荣;;司法权的中国特色限制——以我国商事仲裁中临时措施决定权与执行权的归属为视角[J];仲裁研究;2008年04期
相关博士学位论文 前2条
1 张虎;外国仲裁裁决在我国的承认与执行研究[D];大连海事大学;2014年
2 倪静;知识产权纠纷诉讼外解决机制研究[D];厦门大学;2008年
相关硕士学位论文 前2条
1 张文钧;论知识产权争议的可仲裁性[D];华东政法大学;2014年
2 张艳琳;知识产权争议的可仲裁性研究[D];中国政法大学;2009年
，本文编号：2228697
本文链接：https://www.wllwen.com/falvlunwen/susongfa/2228697.html
