现有技术抗辩对比标准研究
发布时间：2018-11-14 21:00
【摘要】：根据专利的基本原理，专利公开后进入公众领域，任何人均享有获取该专利内容的权益，作为对价，专利权人获得了很强的独占实施权，不当授权的瑕疵专利授权后会对公共利益造成侵害，理应被宣告无效。我国在专利侵权和专利无效实行的是双轨制，即职权分离主义。国家知识产权局专利复审委员会是唯一受理专利无效的机构，人民法院无权对专利的无效做出宣告，而且人民法院都是基于专利有效前提进行侵权审理的。被告人在专利侵权案件审理中要宣告专利权无效只能向专利复审委员会提起，并且根据受理文件及证据暂时请求人民法院裁定中止审理案件。2008年《专利法》的第三次修改将“现有技术抗辩”制度正式上升到法律层面进行架构，一定程度上缓解了因提出无效宣告造成的侵权案件审理周期长的问题，被告可以及时摆脱诉累，快速的投入生产经营之中。司法解释对现有技术抗辩的对比方式做出了规定,但是在现有技术抗辩对比标准的细节性问题上，司法解释用词的模糊性使得该规定在理论上没有达成统一认识，在司法判例中也没有产生执行标准。2012年最高法发布的“泽田公司与格瑞特公司侵犯实用新型专利纠纷”一案采用相同或等同标准判断现有技术抗辩是否成立，对现有技术抗辩对比标准的研究具有重要的借鉴意义。本文结合该专利纠纷一案，，运用比较研究方法从理论和司法实务角度对现有技术抗辩的对比标准进行应用性研究，以期寻找专利权人和公众之间的利益平衡点。 本文主要通过四个部分对现有技术抗辩对比标准在专利侵权中的应用进行论述。首先，对“泽田公司与格瑞特公司之间的实用新型专利纠纷一案”的案情进行介绍，了解不同级别法院对本案的司法裁判，明确本案的争议专利技术特征和当事人之间的诉讼争议点。进而得出本文争议的焦点在于采用什么现有技术抗辩对比标准来平衡公共利益与专利权人的权利；其次，介绍国内现有技术抗辩对比标准的不同理论观点，主要观点有无新颖性标准、明显近似标准、等同标准、创造性标准等，四种对比标准所包含的范围是层层扩大的；然后结合对四种观点和专利侵权领域现有技术抗辩的理解深入阐释各观点的合理性与不足之处。再次，借用专利审查领域进行技术对比的新颖性、创造性和专利侵权领域进行技术对比的相同或等同的判断标准，并结合上文的分析和本人对于专利法及相关司法解释的思考，阐述关于等同标准所涉及到的问题；最后，对比分析德国、日本、美国的现有技术抗辩，得出三国的现有技术抗辩对比标准是创造性标准；然后对该标准作本土化分析，探讨该标准在我国目前的可行性，在此基础上总结该标准在我国适用的必备因素。
[Abstract]:According to the basic principles of the patent, after the patent has been made public, anyone has the right to acquire the content of the patent. As a counterconsideration, the patentee has obtained a strong monopoly. Improper licensing of defective patents will infringe upon the public interest and should be declared null and void. In our country, patent infringement and patent invalidation are two-track system, that is, power separatism. The Patent Reexamination Board of the State intellectual property Office is the only institution that accepts the invalidation of the patent, and the people's court has no right to declare the invalidation of the patent, and the people's court tries the infringement on the basis of the valid premise of the patent. If the defendant wishes to declare the patent right invalid in the case of patent infringement, he can only file it with the Patent Reexamination Board. The third revision of the Patent Law in 2008 formally raised the "defense of existing technology" system to the legal level to carry out a framework. To some extent, it alleviates the problem of long trial period of tort cases caused by invalid declaration, and the defendant can get rid of the tiredness in time and put into production and operation quickly. The judicial interpretation has made the stipulation to the contrast way of the existing technology defense, but in the detail question of the contrast standard of the existing technology defense, the ambiguity of the judicial interpretation words makes this stipulation have not reached the unified understanding in theory. There is no enforcement standard in judicial precedents. The 2012 Supreme Law case, "the patent dispute between Satoshi and Gretel against utility models," applies the same or equivalent criteria to determine whether the existing technical defences are valid. The research on the contrast standard of existing technology defense has important reference significance. Combined with the patent dispute case, this paper applies the comparative research method to the comparative standard of the existing technical defences from the angle of theory and judicial practice, in order to find the balance of interests between the patentee and the public. This paper mainly discusses the application of the contrast standard of existing technology defense in patent infringement through four parts. First of all, to introduce the case of the utility model patent dispute between Zetan and Gretel, and to understand the judicial decisions of different levels of courts in this case. Clarify the technical features of the dispute patent and the dispute points between the parties. Furthermore, the focus of this paper is to balance the public interest and the patentee's rights by adopting the standard of contrast of the existing technology defense. Secondly, it introduces the different theoretical viewpoints of the contrast standard of the existing technology in China. The main viewpoints are whether the novelty standard, the obvious approximate standard, the equivalent standard, the creative standard and so on. The scope of the four kinds of contrast standards is expanded layer by layer. Then, it explains the rationality and deficiency of the four viewpoints and the existing technology defense in patent infringement field. Thirdly, using the novelty of technology comparison in the field of patent examination, the same or equivalent judgment standard of technical comparison in the field of creativity and patent infringement, and combining with the above analysis and my own thinking on patent law and related judicial interpretation, (B) to elaborate on the issues involved in the criterion of equivalence; Finally, by comparing and analyzing the existing technology defense of Germany, Japan and the United States, it is concluded that the contrast standard of the existing technology defense of the three countries is the creative standard. Then the localization analysis of the standard is made, and the feasibility of the standard in our country is discussed, and the necessary factors for the application of the standard in our country are summarized.
【学位授予单位】：西南政法大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2014
【分类号】：D923.42
本文编号：2332291
[Abstract]:According to the basic principles of the patent, after the patent has been made public, anyone has the right to acquire the content of the patent. As a counterconsideration, the patentee has obtained a strong monopoly. Improper licensing of defective patents will infringe upon the public interest and should be declared null and void. In our country, patent infringement and patent invalidation are two-track system, that is, power separatism. The Patent Reexamination Board of the State intellectual property Office is the only institution that accepts the invalidation of the patent, and the people's court has no right to declare the invalidation of the patent, and the people's court tries the infringement on the basis of the valid premise of the patent. If the defendant wishes to declare the patent right invalid in the case of patent infringement, he can only file it with the Patent Reexamination Board. The third revision of the Patent Law in 2008 formally raised the "defense of existing technology" system to the legal level to carry out a framework. To some extent, it alleviates the problem of long trial period of tort cases caused by invalid declaration, and the defendant can get rid of the tiredness in time and put into production and operation quickly. The judicial interpretation has made the stipulation to the contrast way of the existing technology defense, but in the detail question of the contrast standard of the existing technology defense, the ambiguity of the judicial interpretation words makes this stipulation have not reached the unified understanding in theory. There is no enforcement standard in judicial precedents. The 2012 Supreme Law case, "the patent dispute between Satoshi and Gretel against utility models," applies the same or equivalent criteria to determine whether the existing technical defences are valid. The research on the contrast standard of existing technology defense has important reference significance. Combined with the patent dispute case, this paper applies the comparative research method to the comparative standard of the existing technical defences from the angle of theory and judicial practice, in order to find the balance of interests between the patentee and the public. This paper mainly discusses the application of the contrast standard of existing technology defense in patent infringement through four parts. First of all, to introduce the case of the utility model patent dispute between Zetan and Gretel, and to understand the judicial decisions of different levels of courts in this case. Clarify the technical features of the dispute patent and the dispute points between the parties. Furthermore, the focus of this paper is to balance the public interest and the patentee's rights by adopting the standard of contrast of the existing technology defense. Secondly, it introduces the different theoretical viewpoints of the contrast standard of the existing technology in China. The main viewpoints are whether the novelty standard, the obvious approximate standard, the equivalent standard, the creative standard and so on. The scope of the four kinds of contrast standards is expanded layer by layer. Then, it explains the rationality and deficiency of the four viewpoints and the existing technology defense in patent infringement field. Thirdly, using the novelty of technology comparison in the field of patent examination, the same or equivalent judgment standard of technical comparison in the field of creativity and patent infringement, and combining with the above analysis and my own thinking on patent law and related judicial interpretation, (B) to elaborate on the issues involved in the criterion of equivalence; Finally, by comparing and analyzing the existing technology defense of Germany, Japan and the United States, it is concluded that the contrast standard of the existing technology defense of the three countries is the creative standard. Then the localization analysis of the standard is made, and the feasibility of the standard in our country is discussed, and the necessary factors for the application of the standard in our country are summarized.
【学位授予单位】：西南政法大学
【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 杨志敏;关于“公知技术抗辩”若干问题的研究——从中、德、日三国判例与学说的对比角度[J];比较法研究;2003年02期
2 冯晓青;;知识产权法目的与利益平衡关系的实证分析——以美国《宪法》知识产权条款为例[J];北京科技大学学报(社会科学版);2008年03期
3 雷艳珍;杨玉新;;美国专利法中的现有技术抗辩[J];电子知识产权;2010年03期
4 陈荣飞;;论现有技术抗辩在专利侵权诉讼中的适用[J];中国发明与专利;2012年01期
5 翟文峰;张炳生;;现有技术抗辩的对比标准[J];中国矿业大学学报(社会科学版);2010年03期
6 吴胜华;;等同原则的适用及限制——以规制专利权滥用为视角[J];科技与法律;2010年03期
7 张中华;;专利实务中的现有技术抗辩[J];江苏科技信息;2013年01期
8 谭筱清;已有公知技术抗辩原则在专利侵权诉讼中的运用[J];人民司法;2002年08期
9 雷艳珍;;中美现有技术抗辩制度之比较[J];河南省政法管理干部学院学报;2010年01期
10 孙振嘉;孙放;张晓辉;;中日《专利法》比较研究[J];情报科学;2012年11期
本文编号：2332291
本文链接：https://www.wllwen.com/falvlunwen/zhishichanquanfa/2332291.html
