确认不侵权之诉的证明责任分配问题研究

发布时间：2018-06-11 23:19

本文选题：知识产权 + 确认不侵权之诉　；参考：《复旦大学》2013年硕士论文

【摘要】：知识产权的确认不侵权之诉是知识产权制度发展过程中的重要补充,对于平衡知识产权权利人及疑似侵权人之间的利益关系具有重要的作用。尤其是随着知识经济的全球化,越来越多的市场主体认识到保护诸如专利、商标、商业秘密等知识产权的重要性,与此同时一些滥用知识产权权利以求打击竞争对手的情况也屡见不鲜。因此,为了掌握诉讼的主动权,避免商业上不可预料的损失进一步扩大,并尽可能维护自身的合法权益,被控的疑似侵权人也逐渐利用确认不侵权之诉来展开有效的防御。确认不侵权之诉在西方国家已经较为普遍且制度也相对成熟。大陆法系国家通常将确认不侵权之诉归类在消极的确认之诉中,而英美法系一般则是疑似侵权人请求法院作出“宣告式判决”,且美国《宣告式判决法》(U.S.Code Title28,Section2202)对此作了较为详细的规定等。由于我国的知识产权确认不侵权之诉制度建立的时间不长,虽然最高人民法院相继通过批复、司法解释的形式确定了该类型诉讼的受理条件、管辖法院、案由等,但目前在理论和实践中都存在诸多问题尚未得到解决,诸如确认不侵权之诉的性质、证明责任分配、与侵权之诉间的关系等制度设计上仍处于空白或争议阶段,需要进一步完善。笔者试图通过本文的介绍,完善对我国确认不侵权之诉的证明责任分配以及解明义务承担规则的构建,以期能够为我国立法、司法中有关确认不侵权之诉证明责任分配制度的建设提供一点浅薄建议,并促进和健全我国知识产权案件审理法制的不断发展。除引言和结语外,本论文主体分为三个章节。在第一章中,对确认不侵权之诉以及证明责任分配的一般原理进行概述。其一,通过对确认之诉的介绍引出确认不侵权之诉的概念,并对其争议于侵权之诉和确认之诉之间的性质进行考辩；通过对确认不侵权之诉提出条件中的“确认利益”的介绍,进一步阐述该制度的重要性。其二,目前现存关于证明责任分配的学说众多,通过对大陆法系与英美法系具有代表性学说的介绍,提出可以供我国证明责任分配制度借鉴的学说的优势之处。在第二章中,通过对我国知识产权确认不侵权之诉证明责任分配制度在理论与实践上的探索,结合域外在此问题上的研究,为后文的完善建议奠定基础。在第三章中,首先阐述了证明责任分配制度对于确认不侵权之诉的意义,其次在立法上对于可能完善确认不侵权之诉相关证明责任分配的制度提出笔者的建议和看法。
[Abstract]:The confirmation and non-infringement of intellectual property rights is an important supplement in the development of intellectual property system and plays an important role in balancing the interests between the owner of intellectual property rights and the suspected infringer. In particular, with the globalization of the knowledge economy, more and more market participants realize the importance of protecting intellectual property rights such as patents, trademarks, trade secrets, etc. At the same time, abuse of intellectual property rights to crack down on competitors is common. Therefore, in order to seize the initiative of litigation, to avoid further expansion of unforeseen losses in business and to safeguard as much as possible their legitimate rights and interests, The alleged infringer also gradually uses the confirmation of non-infringement action to launch an effective defense. The confirmation of non-infringement action has been relatively common in western countries and the system is relatively mature. Civil law countries usually classify non-infringing claims as negative ones, while common law systems generally refer to suspected infringers requesting a "declaratory judgment" from the court. The U.S. Code title 28 / Section22022 provides more detailed regulations on this issue. As the establishment of the system of non-infringement of intellectual property rights in our country is not long, although the Supreme people's Court has decided on the conditions for accepting this type of litigation, jurisdiction over the court, and the cause of the case through the approval and judicial interpretation one after another, However, there are still many problems in theory and practice, such as confirming the nature of non-tort action, the distribution of burden of proof, and the relationship between tort litigation and so on, which are still in blank or controversial stage. Further improvement is needed. Through the introduction of this article, the author tries to perfect the distribution of burden of proof and the construction of rules to explain the responsibility of proof, in order to legislate for our country. In the administration of justice, the construction of the system of confirming non-tort litigation burden of proof distribution provides some superficial suggestions, and promotes and perfects the continuous development of the legal system of intellectual property cases in China. In addition to the introduction and conclusion, the main body of this paper is divided into three chapters. In the first chapter, the author summarizes the general principle of non-tort action and the distribution of burden of proof. First of all, through the introduction of confirmation action, the concept of confirmation non-tort action is introduced, and the nature of the dispute between tort action and confirmation action is examined and argued; through the introduction of "recognized interest" in the condition of confirming non-tort action, The importance of the system is further elaborated. Secondly, there are many existing theories on the distribution of burden of proof. Through the introduction of the representative theories of civil law system and common law system, this paper puts forward the advantages of the theory that can be used for reference in the system of burden of proof distribution in our country. In the second chapter, through the theoretical and practical exploration of the distribution system of the burden of proof in the confirmation of intellectual property rights in our country, combined with the research on this issue outside the country, it lays the foundation for the perfection of the following suggestions. In the third chapter, the author first expounds the significance of the burden of proof distribution system for the confirmation of non-tort action, and then, in legislation, puts forward the author's suggestions and views on the possible perfection of the system of confirmation of non-tort litigation related to the distribution of the burden of proof.
【学位授予单位】：复旦大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2013
【分类号】：D923.4

【相似文献】