专利等同侵权认定标准研究

发布时间：2018-01-27 23:35

  本文关键词： 专利 等同侵权 侵权标准 专利侵权　出处：《湖南大学》2016年博士论文　论文类型：学位论文

【摘要】：等同侵权的判断原则已经为世界各国所广泛承认,但如何结合具体行业技术的特点制定出等同侵权的客观认定标准,仍是一个未能妥善解决的难题。等同原则起源于美国,并且在欧美日等诸多国家得到广泛运用。美国的等同侵权理论及具体判定方法是在司法实践过程中逐步确立的。Mur Phy案确立了“功能-方式-效果”三一致标准,Hilton案明确了“全部技术特征等同”的比较方法。等同原则的限制包括:禁止反悔原则、捐献规则、现有技术抗辩、反向等同原则等。日本“滚珠花键轴承案”肯定了等同原则,提出了等同原则的五个构成要件:非本质部分、置换可能性、置换容易性、非公知技术和特别事由(禁止反悔)。德国的等同原则采用目的解释论,借助Formstein案确立了等同原则,包括积极要件和消极要件。我国通过司法解释确立了等同原则的客观标准、主观标准和逐个技术特征比较规则,但与域外相关制度相比,我国的等同原则仍然存在缺乏系统性等问题。专利等同侵权判定模式包括比较对象、判定方法、等同时间三个方面,在比较对象方面我国有必要通过立法形式引入逆等同原则。在判定方法方面,包括“功能、方式、效果三部测试法”、非实质性差异测试法以及显而易见性测试法。时间方面各个国家的判定各有不同。我国的等同原则在时间标准方面,应采用侵权行为发生日;在范围标准方面,应对开创性发明和改良性发明给予不同的保护范围要件待遇,对外观设计侵权不适用等同原则。在程序体系方面,应建立统一、高效的专利审判制度,严格的专利行政审批程序和法定、专业的鉴定机构。在排除体系方面,应纳入主观排除和客观排除制度。涉及等同原则中的主要技术领域有:机械类发明、电学类发明、化学类发明、带有计算机程序的发明。在等同侵权的认定过程中,对机械类发明应当重点考察机械的组成部件、部件的位置及连接关系等方面。在电学领域,更多地运用了功能性权利要求。创造其性判断应当着重考虑电路结构、连接关系及其功能,还要考虑电路的工作状态。对于化学类发明,应当全面确立以方法界定产品的权利要求,建立“必要性”的审查规则,在等同侵权的认定中,对方法技术特征采用全部限定法,来明确等同侵权中的适用规则。对带有计算机程序的发明可以采用功能性限定的方式加以撰写,以功能限定结合现有技术作为等同侵权判定依据。在创造性不同的发明类型中,开拓性发明,开拓性程度越高则专利权人所能获得的保护范围就越宽。我国的法律对开拓性发明确定了适当宽松的等同保护范围,对其检验应主要交由市场和社会来进行判断。组合发明,我国目前尚未正式法律来确定组合发明的侵权判定标准,确定等同保护的范围可以适当从严。在判断是否属于“显而易见”时,美国法院确立了“Graham测试标准”的四个要素我国可以借鉴。选择发明,对于开放式权利要求的选择发明来说,专利侵权判定依据三种不同情况适用不同原则。要素变更的发明,应当在“方式——功能——结果”三要素基本判断法以及本领域普通技术人员的判断的基础上来进行判定。适用等同原则还应关注本领域普通技术人员为代表的专家证人标准。专利诉讼中涉及到复杂的专业技术问题,有必要依赖专家证人制度对专业问题予以澄清和解释,等同侵权判定过程中专家证人需要有一定的选择标准,作为行内普通技术人员,“普通”二字对于不同的技术领域有不同的含义。普通技术人员进行等同侵权判定时也需要遵循一定的标准。其目的在于最终实现知识产权法利益保护上的平衡,在司法中运用等同原则的判断标准日趋成熟。
[Abstract]:Equivalent infringement judgment principle has been widely accepted all over the world, but how to combine the characteristics of specific industry technology to develop equivalent infringement objective standard, is still a failure to properly solve the problem. The equivalent principle originated in the United States, and has been widely used in Europe and many other countries. The equivalent infringement theory and concrete judgment method is gradually established in the judicial practice in the process of.Mur Phy established "31 function way" by American standards, Hilton case of clear "comparative method is equivalent to all the technical features of the doctrine of equivalents. Limitations include: estoppel principle, donation rules, existing technology defense, reverse equivalent principle. Japan" the ball spline bearing case affirmed the equal principle, puts forward five elements of the doctrine of equivalents: non essential part, the possibility of replacement, easy replacement of non known technology And the special causes (estoppel). The principle of equal Germany by objective interpretation theory, with the aid of the Formstein case established the doctrine of equivalents, including positive factors and negative factors in our country. Through the interpretation of law of objective equivalent principle, subjective standard and technical features one by one compared with the relevant rules, but compared to the same principle in our country there are still problems is lack of system. The patent of equivalent infringement mode includes the comparison object, judgment method, equivalent to the three aspects of time, in object it is necessary to pass legislation into inverse doctrine. In determining methods, including the function, effect of three test method, non a substantial difference between the test method and test method to determine. Obviously each country has different time. The doctrine of equivalents in standard time, the tort of hair In the scope of the standard, birthday; deal with the pioneering invention and improvement of invention given the scope of protection of elements of different treatment, the appearance of design infringement not to apply the doctrine of equivalents. In the system, we should establish a unified and efficient patent trial system, strict patent administrative examination and approval procedures and the legal, professional accreditation bodies in the exclusion. System, should be included in the subjective and objective rule removal system. The main technical field relates to equivalent principle are: mechanical invention, electrical invention, chemical invention, with a computer program of the invention. In the process of recognition and equivalent infringement in the mechanical components of mechanical invention shall be inspected, the location of units and the connection relationship. In the field of electricity, with more functional claims. The judge should consider creating circuit structure, connection and function, but also consider the power The road working condition. For the chemical class invention should be fully established by the method of defining the right product requirements, the establishment of the "necessity" of censorship rules, equivalent infringement, using all defined method on technical features of the method, to clarify the applicable rules of tort. The equivalent of a computer program of the invention can be used function limited way of writing, to limit the current technology as the basis of equivalent infringement. In different types of creative invention, pioneering pioneering invention, the scope of protection of the higher degree of the patentee can get more wide. The law of our country to determine the appropriate loose equivalent protection scope of development of the invention, the inspection should be mainly by the market and society to judge. Combination of invention, our country has not yet formally law to determine the infringement standard combination method, to determine the equivalent The scope of protection can be strictly. In determining whether to belong to "obviously", the United States Court established the "four elements of the Graham test standard" can be used for reference in China. Choose the invention, for invention open claims for patent infringement according to three different situations to apply different principles. Elements change invention. It should be in the "- function - the result" three elements of basic judgment based method and ordinary technical personnel in the field to judge. Judge the application of the doctrine of equivalents should also pay attention to ordinary technical personnel in the field as the representative of the expert witness professional standards. Complex technical issues involved in patent litigation, it is necessary to rely on expert witness system clarification and explanation of professional issues, equivalent infringement in the process of expert witness to selection criteria, as ordinary people in technology Member of "ordinary" two words have different meanings in different areas of technology. The common technical personnel of equivalent infringement also need to follow certain standards. Its purpose is to realize the interests of intellectual property protection on the balance in the judicial application of judgment standard of the doctrine of equivalents is becoming mature.

【学位授予单位】：湖南大学
【学位级别】：博士
【学位授予年份】：2016
【分类号】：D923.42
，

本文编号：1469134