论“通知—移除”规则在网络专利侵权中的适用

发布时间：2018-03-18 07:59

本文选题：专利侵权　切入点：“通知——移除”规则　出处：《宁波大学》2017年硕士论文　论文类型：学位论文

【摘要】：现代社会生活离不开网络,网络的高速发展给在人类带来极大便捷的同时,也对传统法律制度带来了挑战,知识产权制度就是受到冲击最大的领域之一。如何在保护知识产权的同时不阻碍网络技术和网络产业发展,是摆在法律人面前的难题。为解决这一问题,美国国会在1998年通过《千禧年数字版权法》(DMCA),在网络著作权纠纷中确立了以“通知与移除”为核心内容的“避风港”规则。我国借鉴该规则在《信息网络传播权保护条例》中做出了较为详细的规定。并在其后出台的《侵权责任法》中将“通知——移除”规则作为网络民事侵权的一般性规定确立了下来。专利权作为《侵权责任法》保护的客体之一,其网络纠纷应当适用“通知——移除”规则。但专利权与著作权、商标权侵权判定具有较大差别,专利侵权判断因为技术因素,专业性特别强,网络服务提供者仅靠普通人的知识、技术和一般经验无法做出判断。如果专利权侵权完全照搬著作权相关规定,简单地赋予网络服务提供者全面判定专利侵权义务,不恰当地加重了网络服务者经营责任。如何针对专利权本身特性,结合制度规定和我国的实践,借鉴与吸收国外相关制度的有益经验,制定适合网络专利权侵权特点和网络技术、网络产业发展的专利侵权责任制度,是专利法修改中争论的焦点问题,也是本文拟讨论与解决的核心问题。本文在“通知——移除”规则既有定义之下探讨了该规则在网络专利侵权案件中适用的可行性,认为这一规则虽然起源于版权领域,而且专利侵权确实与版权侵权具有一定的差异性,但是,在适当的制度损益之后,在网络专利侵权中仍有适用的余地,并就此展开理论的研究与实践的考察。本文共分四个部分,第一部分是对“通知——移除”规则本身概况的讨论,主要叙述了“通知——移除”规则在美国的产生,以及我国对该规则在网络侵权领域中的移植。因我国在移植该规则时没有充分考虑中美法律差异性,造成了“通知——移除”规则性质在我国学界存在相互矛盾的两种解释。同时,该规则虽是现阶段能够找到的平衡各方利益最优的解决方式,但在实施过程中滥用问题较为突出。这部分对“通知——移除”规则本身概况的讨论,为下文讨论其在网络专利侵权中适用的可行性问题做好铺垫。第二部分对“通知——移除”规则适用到网络专利侵权中进行了可行性分析,在上文所讨论“通知——移除”规则本身概况的基础上,分三个方面讨论该规则适用于网络专利侵权领域中的可行性。首先,网络专利侵权中适用“通知——移除”规则符合利益平衡原则。其次,网络专利侵权中适用“通知——移除”规则符合立法目的。最后,网络专利侵权中适用“通知——移除”规则符合过错原则。通过可行性分析,为下文规则适用具体规定的讨论打好基础。第三部分从“通知——移除”规则在网络专利侵权中适用的判断要素分别讨论,即适用主体、客观要件、主观要件以及“通知”、“移除”具体规定四个方面做出讨论。在分析专利侵权与版权侵权区别的基础上,借鉴版权相关规定,针对差异性制定适用于网络专利侵权的“通知——移除”规则。第四部分对该规则适用提出了一些配套制度建议,认为可以借鉴网络平台服务提供者的现有经验,完善“通知——移除”规则实施情况。
[Abstract]:Modern society cannot do without the network, the rapid development of network brings great convenience to the human at the same time, it also brings challenges to the traditional legal system, intellectual property system is one of the largest areas of impact. How does not hinder the network technology and the development of the network industry in the protection of intellectual property rights, is a difficult problem in legal person before. In order to solve this problem, the United States Congress passed the "Digital Millennium Copyright Law in 1998 (DMCA), the network copyright disputes established by the" notice and remove the "as the core content of the" safe harbor "rules. The rules of our reference made more detailed provisions in" information network the regulation on the protection of the right of communication. And in the subsequent introduction of the "tort liability law" in the "notice to remove" rule as the network tort general provisions established. As the patent tort law > < Paul One of the object system, the network disputes should apply the "notice to remove" rule. But the patent right and copyright, trademark infringement has a larger difference between the judgment of patent infringement because of technical factors, particularly strong professional network service providers, relying on ordinary people's knowledge, technology and experience in general if the patent is unable to make a judgment. Completely copy the relevant provisions of the copyright infringement, simply give the network service provider comprehensive patent infringement obligation inappropriately increased responsibility for network services management. According to the characteristics of patent right itself, combined with the regulations and the practice of our country, the beneficial experience and the absorption of foreign related system, for the development of the network characteristics of patent infringement and the network technology, patent infringement liability system in the development of the Internet industry, is the focus of the patent law revision of the debate, this paper also intends to discuss and solve The core of the problem. Based on the "notice to remove" rule is defined under the feasibility of the applicable rules of patent infringement cases in the network, although that this rule originated in the field of copyright and patent infringement and copyright infringement does have some differences, but after the system gains appropriate, in the network there is still room for patent infringement, and to carry out a study of theory research and practice. This paper is divided into four parts, the first part is the discussion of the "notice to remove" rule of itself, mainly describes the "notice - remove" rule in the United States, and our country to the rule in transplantation in the field of Internet infringement. Because our country is in transplantation the rules did not fully consider the difference of Sino US law caused, "notice to remove" rule properties in the presence of my circle of conflicting Ancient Chinese Literature Search The two explanation. At the same time, the rules are now able to find the optimal solution to balance the interests of all parties, but in the implementation process of abuse problems are more prominent. This part of the discussion of the "notice to remove" rule of itself, to pave the way for the following discussion the feasibility of its application in the patent infringement in the network at the second part of the "notice - remove" rules apply to patent infringement in the network carried out a feasibility analysis on the basis of above discussion "notice to remove" rule itself on the general situation, divided into three aspects to discuss the rules for the feasibility of network in the field of patent infringement. First of all, in accordance with the principle of balance of interests "notice - remove" applicable rules of patent infringement in the network. Secondly, according to the legislative objective "notice to remove" rule for patent infringement in the network. Finally, the network for patent infringement "Notice to remove" rule in accordance with the principle of fault. Through feasibility analysis, laid the foundation for the following discussion of the specific provisions of applicable rules. The third part discussed elements of judgment from the "notice - remove" applicable rules of patent infringement in the network, which is the main objective elements, the subjective elements and the "notice", "specific remove the" provisions of the four aspects discussed. Based on the analysis of patent infringement and copyright infringement on the difference of the reference, the relevant provisions of the copyright, the difference formulation is applied to the network of patent infringement "notice to remove" rule. The fourth part puts forward some suggestions on the applicable rules of the supporting system, that can draw lessons from the existing experience of network service platform the provider, perfecting the "notice to remove" rule implementation.

【学位授予单位】：宁波大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2017
【分类号】：D923

【参考文献】