变劣行为的侵权认定

发布时间：2019-04-02 08:50

【摘要】：随着科学技术的迅猛发展，越来越多的企业和个人开始重视对知识产权的保护。专利制度设计的目的之一是给予权利人全面的法律保护。截至2012年底，我国发明专利累计授权量就达到111.1万。随着专利申请量逐年递增，专利侵权诉讼的数量也扶摇直上。为了逃避法律的追究，避免被牵涉到专利侵权诉讼中，一些企业采用省略技术特征、改变技术特征的方式改变专利技术方案，这成为企业规避专利技术的常用手段。专利侵权诉讼中，被控侵权技术如果认定侵权，要么构成相同侵权，要么构成等同侵权。如果改变或者省略技术特征之后的技术方案在效果、功能等方面变差了，而不是优化了，也没有实现基本相同的功能、达到基本相同的效果，这种情况不符合相同侵权的要求，似乎也不符合等同原则的要求，那么是否构成侵权呢？一些企业、个人正是采用这样的方式试图钻法律的空子，逃避专利侵权诉讼的追究。那么这种情形是否真的可以绕开专利侵权的法律法规呢？可否适用等同原则的认定标准予以判断？各地法院对此问题的看法不一，学术界对此也没有统一的意见，这对专利权人而言无疑构成了极大的困惑和威胁。那么，在全面覆盖原则、等同侵权原则、多余指定原则等理论面前，法院对此问题是如何认定的？在世界各国立法及判例中，对此问题又是什么态度？有哪些值得借鉴之处？本文采用比逻辑分析法、比较法、实证分析法等方法全面探讨实施省略技术特征、改变技术特征使得技术方案的技术效果降低的行为是否构成专利侵权，并提出初步的判定标准。本文分为四个部分来讨论：第一部分，引出问题并从被控侵权产品或者方法涵盖的技术特征与专利技术特征的对比情形出发，对变劣行为的概念进行探讨，得出变劣行为包括的范围，并对变劣行为进行分类。第二部分，主要叙述目前我国各地法院对这类案件的法律适用情况以及学者的理论探讨观点，并简单介绍其他几个国家对此问题的态度。第三部分，分析等同原则、捐献原则、禁止反悔原则等理论问题与变劣行为的关系。得出应该适用等同原则判断改变型变劣行为侵权与否；而对于省略型变劣行为，应根据全面覆盖原则判定不构成侵权。第四部分，根据上述分析并结合当前我国法律的规定，，提出判断变劣行为侵权与否的标准，其中，重点提出判断改变型变劣行为侵权成立的标准。本文研究的现实意义在于全面探讨变劣行为是否构成专利侵权，并粗浅地提出一些判定标准，为企业和法院提供一定的参考。但是，由于水平有限，还有很多地方挖掘的不够深入透彻，恳请读者予以指教。
[Abstract]:With the rapid development of science and technology, more and more enterprises and individuals begin to pay attention to the protection of intellectual property. One of the purposes of patent system design is to give all-round legal protection to the obligee. By the end of 2012, the cumulative authorization of invention patents in China had reached one million one hundred and ten thousand nine hundred and ninety nine. With the number of patent applications increasing year by year, the number of patent infringement litigation is also rising. In order to evade the investigation of the law and avoid being involved in patent infringement litigation, some enterprises adopt the way of omitting the technical characteristics and changing the technical characteristics to change the patent technology scheme, which has become the common means for enterprises to evade the patent technology. In patent infringement litigation, if the alleged tort technology is found to be infringing, it either constitutes the same tort, or constitutes the same tort. If the technical scheme after changing or omitting the technical characteristics becomes worse in terms of effect, function, and so on, rather than being optimized, it has not achieved basically the same function and achieved basically the same effect, and this situation does not meet the requirements of the same infringement. It also does not seem to meet the requirements of the principle of equivalence, so does it constitute a tort? Some companies, individuals use this way to try to exploit the gap in the law, to avoid patent infringement litigation. So can this situation really circumvent the laws and regulations of patent infringement? Can the criteria of the principle of equivalence be applied to judge? Local courts have different views on this issue, and there is no unified opinion in academia, which undoubtedly constitutes a great confusion and threat to the patentee. Then, in the face of the principle of comprehensive coverage, the principle of equivalent infringement, the principle of superfluous designation and so on, how does the court determine this issue? What is the attitude towards this issue in the legislation and jurisprudence of various countries in the world? What is worth learning from? In this paper, comparative logic analysis, comparative analysis, empirical analysis and other methods are used to comprehensively explore whether the behavior of omitting the technical characteristics and changing the technical characteristics to reduce the technical effectiveness of the technical scheme constitutes patent infringement. At the same time, a preliminary criterion is put forward. This paper is divided into four parts: in the first part, the problem is introduced and the concept of substandard behavior is discussed from the comparison between the technical characteristics of the products or methods covered by the alleged infringement and the technical characteristics of the patent. The scope of deterioration behavior is obtained, and the classification of bad behavior is carried out. The second part mainly describes the legal application of this kind of cases in the courts of various parts of our country at present, as well as the theoretical discussion viewpoint of scholars, and briefly introduces the attitude of several other countries to this problem. The third part analyzes the relationship between the principle of equivalence, the principle of donation, the principle of estoppel and the bad behavior. It is concluded that the principle of equivalence should be applied to judge whether or not the altered act is infringed or not, while the principle of overall coverage should not be used to judge the infringement. The fourth part, according to the above-mentioned analysis and combined with the provisions of the current law of our country, puts forward the criterion of judging whether or not the act of deterioration is infringed or not. The practical significance of this paper is to probe into whether bad behavior constitutes patent infringement in an all-round way, and put forward some judgment criteria to provide some reference for enterprises and courts. However, due to the limited level, there are still many places that are not thoroughly excavated, implored the reader to give advice.
【学位授予单位】：华东政法大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2013
【分类号】：D923.42

【相似文献】