论我国专利确权程序与侵权诉讼程序的交叉与协调

发布时间：2018-06-24 19:56

本文选题：专利权的有效性 + 专利侵权诉讼程序　；参考：《吉林大学》2017年硕士论文

【摘要】：我国专利确权与侵权纠纷的处理方式不同,专利侵权纠纷由人民法院适用民事诉讼程序审理,而专利无效纠纷由专利复审委员会(以下简称复审委)处理,对复审委的决定不服提起诉讼后由北京知识产权法院适用行政诉讼程序审理。在专利侵权案件中,若当事人启动了专利确权程序主张认定专利权的效力,就会导致专利确权程序与侵权诉讼程序的交叉。如果专利权无效,被告就不会侵犯专利权,这就是专利确权程序与专利侵权程序常常同时存在的原因,在同一专利的确权与侵权案中,专利权有效性的结论非常重要。专利侵权案的当事人请求宣告专利权无效时,法院要裁定是否中止案件的审理,中止状态下需要等待专利确权程序的审查结论,不能快速解决纠纷;不中止可能导致侵权判决与专利权有效性的审查结论冲突的状况。实践中专利确权程序与专利侵权诉讼程序不协调,司法机关和行政机关常常各自为政,严重影响了解决纠纷的效率。判定专利权有效性的权力和审理专利侵权案件的权力相分离,这种职权分离模式的优点是复审委能够集中审查问题专利,确保审查结论的正确性和权威性,缺点是容易导致专利侵权案件久拖不决。处理专利纠纷的这种职权分离的模式是实践中种种问题出现的部分原因,但不是矛盾产生的根源。德国也严格划分无效诉讼与侵权诉讼之间的路径,采取职权分离的模式,但没有出现我国这种诉讼中止时间长,审判结论冲突的问题。我国仅仅形式上学习了德国这种职权分离的模式,但具体制度的设计并不完善,例如专利侵权案件的审判权分散,专利确权程序不完善,专利确权与专利侵权案件的审理程序不协调。盲目打破职权分离的模式,仍然会出现裁判冲突的状况。专利侵权案件的审判法院比较分散,法官的审案能力良莠不齐,如果赋予审理专利侵权案件的法院认定专利权效力的权力,不能准确判定专利权的效力,会出现不同的司法机关对同一件专利的效力认定不同的状况,也无法避免法院的判决与专利复审委员会的决定冲突的情况。通过介绍美国、日本、德国三国专利无效纠纷与专利侵权纠纷的处理方式可以了解各国制度的优缺点,也可以掌握各国对该制度的改革方向。美国主要由司法机关负责专利无效的审判工作,近年来,美国加强了行政机关审查专利权效力的权力。德国严格划分专利侵权审判与专利无效审判之间的路径,其优点在于统一全国范围内专利无效的审查标准,确保无效决定的正确性和权威性。德国近几年在不断地完善专利无效审判的制度,提高审判效率和水平,缩短专利确权的时间,提高解决专利纠纷的效率。日本主要由行政机关负责专利无效的审判工作,其在近几年的知识产权制度的改革过程中尝试通过司法途径在侵权案中判定专利权的效力。在职权分离的模式下,完善具体的制度内容能够有效缓解实践中的种种矛盾。完善专利确权程序,避免循环诉讼的发生,有效提高解决专利侵权纠纷的效率;集中审理专利侵权案件,加强判案人员的技术查明的能力;建立统一的知识产权上诉法院协调专利确权程序与侵权案件审理程序的结论,维护裁判的统一性和权威性。
[Abstract]:In our country, the patent right is different from the tort dispute, and the patent infringement dispute is tried by the people's court, and the patent invalid dispute is dealt with by the patent retrial Committee (hereinafter referred to as the retrial Committee), and the administrative proceedings of the Beijing intellectual property court will be tried after the decision of the retrial Committee. In the case of patent infringement, if the parties start the patent right procedure to assert the validity of the patent right, it will lead to the cross between the patent right procedure and the tort litigation procedure. If the patent is invalid, the defendant will not infringe the patent right, which is the reason that the patent right procedure and the patent infringement procedure often exist at the same time, in the same patent. In the case of right and tort, the conclusion of the validity of patent right is very important. When the parties to the case of patent infringement claim that the patent right is invalid, the court shall decide whether to suspend the trial, and to wait for the conclusion of the examination of the patent right procedure under the suspension state, and can not solve the dispute quickly; the infringement may lead to the infringement judgment and the patent right. The status of the conflict of validity is examined. In practice, the patent right procedure and the patent infringement litigation procedure are incompatible, the judicial organs and the administrative organs often do their own affairs, which seriously affect the efficiency of the dispute resolution. The power of determining the validity of the patent right is separated from the power of the patent infringement case, and the advantages of this separation model are the advantages of the patent right. It is the right and authority of the review committee to focus on the question of the question, to ensure the correctness and authority of the conclusion of the review, and to cause the patent infringement cases to be prolonged. This separation model for dealing with patent disputes is part of the reasons for the emergence of various problems in practice, but not the root cause of the contradiction. The path between the tort litigation takes the mode of separation of powers and powers, but it does not appear in the long time of discontinuation of the lawsuit and the conflict of the conclusion of the trial. Our country only learned the model of the separation of powers in Germany, but the design of the specific system is not perfect, such as the decentralization of the right of trial in the special infringement cases, and the procedure of patent right confirmation. Perfect, patent right and patent infringement case trial procedure is not coordinated. Blindly breaking the mode of separation of powers and powers, there will still be the situation of the referee conflict. The trial courts of the patent infringement cases are more scattered, the judges' ability to examine the case is indifferent, and if the court is given the power to determine the validity of the patent right to the court to hear the patent infringement case, To determine the validity of the patent right accurately, there will be different conditions for the different judicial organs to determine the validity of the same patent, and can not avoid the conflict between the decision of the court and the decision of the patent review committee. The advantages and disadvantages of the system can also grasp the direction of the reform of the system. In the United States, the United States is mainly responsible for the invalidity of the patent trial by the judiciary. In recent years, the United States has strengthened the power of the administration to examine the potency of the patent right. In the past few years, Germany has continuously improved the system of patent invalid trial, improved the efficiency and level of the trial, shortened the time of the patent right, and improved the efficiency of resolving patent disputes. In the course of the reform of intellectual property system in recent years, we try to judge the potency of patent right in the case of tort by judicial approach. In the mode of separation of powers, the perfection of specific system content can effectively alleviate the contradictions in practice, improve the patent right procedure, avoid the occurrence of circular litigation, and effectively improve the dispute resolution of patent infringement. In order to maintain the unity and authority of the umpire, we should concentrate on the trial of patent infringement cases, strengthen the ability of the judges to find out the technology, and establish the conclusion of the unified intellectual property right appeals court to coordinate the patent right procedure and the tort case trial procedure.
【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】