等同侵权在司法实践中的研究
发布时间：2018-10-17 21:04
【摘要】：随着知识产权重要性的日益凸显,等同侵权不仅是日益复杂的侵权方式之一,等同原则也已经成为侵权判定原则中的重要组成部分。但是,对于等同原则在我国司法实践当中具体运用状况的实证研究却很少。因此,通过实证分析为等同原则的适用提供新的思路和视野也是文章题中应有之意。 通过对等同侵权案例进行分类,分别从等同侵权案件时间、地区、法院审级、专利主体、类型、技术特征覆盖程度等角度进行实证分析,发现等同原则在司法实践当中存在一些问题,如缺乏判定等同侵权具体的操作标准、法官自由裁量权过大、没有对专利类型进行适当区分、如何正确判定等同侵权等问题。 针对这些问题,提出以下几个方面的建议：1)要正确识别技术特征。2)要正确认定等同侵权判定方法。尤其是对于有无“创造性”的认定,可以考虑通过成立一个由法官、业内普通技术人员、专家组成的三人制小组来完成对技术方案是否具有创造性的认定。3)要严格限制等同原则的适用。4)对等同原则的适用对象也要进行适当区分。5)覆盖技术特征的多寡也可以作为等同原则适用的标准。
[Abstract]:With the increasing importance of intellectual property rights, equivalent infringement is not only one of the increasingly complex ways of infringement, but also the principle of equivalence has become an important part of the principle of infringement judgment. However, there are few empirical studies on the application of equivalence principle in China's judicial practice. Therefore, providing new ideas and vision for the application of the principle of equivalence through empirical analysis is also the meaning of the title of the article. Through the classification of equivalent infringement cases, from the point of view of time, region, court level, patent subject, type, coverage of technical features, etc. It is found that the principle of equivalence has some problems in judicial practice, such as the lack of specific operating standards for judging equivalent infringement, the excessive discretion of judges, the lack of proper differentiation of patent types, and how to correctly determine the equivalent infringement. In view of these problems, the following suggestions are put forward: 1) to identify the technical characteristics correctly; 2) to correctly identify the equivalent tort judgment method. In particular, with regard to the determination of "creativity", consideration could be given to the establishment of a judge, an ordinary technician in the industry, A three-person panel of experts to complete the creative determination of the technical proposal. 3) to strictly limit the application of the equivalence principle. 4) to make an appropriate distinction between the object of application of the equivalence principle. 5) to cover the amount of technical characteristics It can also be used as a criterion for the application of the principle of equivalence.
【学位授予单位】：中南大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2014
【分类号】：D923.42
本文编号：2277969
[Abstract]:With the increasing importance of intellectual property rights, equivalent infringement is not only one of the increasingly complex ways of infringement, but also the principle of equivalence has become an important part of the principle of infringement judgment. However, there are few empirical studies on the application of equivalence principle in China's judicial practice. Therefore, providing new ideas and vision for the application of the principle of equivalence through empirical analysis is also the meaning of the title of the article. Through the classification of equivalent infringement cases, from the point of view of time, region, court level, patent subject, type, coverage of technical features, etc. It is found that the principle of equivalence has some problems in judicial practice, such as the lack of specific operating standards for judging equivalent infringement, the excessive discretion of judges, the lack of proper differentiation of patent types, and how to correctly determine the equivalent infringement. In view of these problems, the following suggestions are put forward: 1) to identify the technical characteristics correctly; 2) to correctly identify the equivalent tort judgment method. In particular, with regard to the determination of "creativity", consideration could be given to the establishment of a judge, an ordinary technician in the industry, A three-person panel of experts to complete the creative determination of the technical proposal. 3) to strictly limit the application of the equivalence principle. 4) to make an appropriate distinction between the object of application of the equivalence principle. 5) to cover the amount of technical characteristics It can also be used as a criterion for the application of the principle of equivalence.
【学位授予单位】：中南大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2014
【分类号】：D923.42
【参考文献】
相关期刊论文 前10条
1 李青武;我国《专利法》中专利权保护范围的不确定性及其对策——兼论等同原则在我国专利保护中的适用[J];安徽教育学院学报;2001年05期
2 黑小兵;;论等同原则的法律适用[J];重庆工商大学学报(社会科学版);2010年05期
3 魏玮;等同原则在专利侵权诉讼中的适用与利益平衡[J];法律适用;2005年03期
4 胡淑珠;;判定专利侵权的等同原则在我国审判实践中的适用与限制[J];法学;2006年08期
5 程志伟;;等同原则在专利侵权诉讼中的法律适用[J];湖北社会科学;2012年11期
6 王伟艳;;专利侵权判定中禁止反悔原则的适用——以一起医药领域专利侵权纠纷案件为例[J];中国发明与专利;2011年10期
7 甄世辉;;论专利侵权判定中等同原则的完善[J];河北法学;2007年12期
8 张勇,顾明华;美国专利侵权的认定与救济规则解读[J];情报科学;2005年06期
9 刘惠明;试论确定专利保护范围的等同原则[J];外国法译评;1999年04期
10 曲三强;专利侵权归责的等同原则研究[J];现代财经-天津财经学院学报;2002年09期
，本文编号：2277969
本文链接：https://www.wllwen.com/falvlunwen/zhishichanquanfa/2277969.html
