本文選題：專利　切入點：專利標識　出處：《華東政法大學》2012年碩士論文　論文類型：學位論文

【摘要】：中美兩國立法者雖然均認同由國家最高專利管理機關(guān)發(fā)布的專利授權(quán)公告具有使公眾應知某項專利權(quán)存在的公示效力，但在關(guān)于專利標注的立法上卻采取了截然不同的做法。我國專利法將專利標注規(guī)定為專利權(quán)人的權(quán)利而非其義務，即使專利權(quán)人不在其生產(chǎn)制造的受專利權(quán)保護的產(chǎn)品上標注專利標識也無需承擔任何不利后果。而美國專利法則規(guī)定專利權(quán)人有義務在其生產(chǎn)制造的受專利權(quán)保護的產(chǎn)品上標注專利標識以通告公眾其專利權(quán)的存在，若其未能依法履行上述義務，其將不能在日后的專利侵權(quán)訴訟中獲得相應的侵權(quán)損害賠償金。 顯然，美國專利法的該等規(guī)定與前述專利授權(quán)公告之公示效力在立法理念上存在沖突。進而問題也就隨之產(chǎn)生：其一，既然美國立法者承認專利授權(quán)公告具有公示效力，那么其為何還要求專利權(quán)人承擔一項專利標注的義務？其二，美國立法者為專利權(quán)人設定該等專利標注的義務，并將其規(guī)定為專利權(quán)人獲得相應侵權(quán)損害賠償金的前提是否合理？其三，，美國的上述做法對我國有何借鑒意義？本文第一章開門見山，提出問題。 帶著上述問題，筆者遂在本文第二章和第三章分別探究了中美兩國的專利標注規(guī)則，隨后在本文第四章對兩國的做法進行了比較研究，進而得出結(jié)論：中美兩國對專利標注的不同立法模式其實與兩國各自的國情有關(guān)，其亦符合兩國各自知識產(chǎn)權(quán)保護法治建設的進程。建議我國的立法者在條件成熟時可以考慮參照美國的做法對我國的專利法進行修訂。
[Abstract]:Although lawmakers in both China and the United States agree that a patent authorization notice issued by the country's top patent administration has the effect of making the public aware of the existence of a patent right, However, in the legislation on patent marking, a completely different approach has been adopted. The patent law of our country stipulates that the patent label is the right of the patentee, not the obligation of the patentee. The patentee does not have to bear any adverse consequences even if the patentee does not mark the patent mark on the patented product he produces and manufactures. And the u. S. Patent law obliges the patentee to insure the patentee of the product he produces and manufactures. The patented product is marked with a patent mark to inform the public of the existence of its patent right, If it fails to fulfill the above obligations, it will not be able to obtain the corresponding damages in the future patent infringement litigation. It is obvious that these provisions of the United States Patent Law conflict with the publicity effect of the aforementioned patent authorization notice in terms of the legislative concept. Thus, the following problems arise: first, since the United States legislator recognizes the patent authorization notice as having the publicity effect, So why does it require the patentee to assume an obligation to mark a patent? Second, is it reasonable for the American legislator to set up the obligation to label the patent for the patentee and to stipulate it as the premise for the patentee to obtain the corresponding damages for infringement? Third, what is the significance of the above-mentioned practices of the United States to our country? In the first chapter of this paper, the author puts forward some questions. With the above problems, the author explores the rules of patent labeling in China and the United States in the second and third chapters, and then makes a comparative study on the practices of the two countries in Chapter 4th of this paper. Furthermore, it is concluded that the different legislative models for patent labeling in China and the United States are actually related to the respective national conditions of the two countries. It is also in line with the process of protecting the rule of law in the two countries. It is suggested that when the conditions are ripe, the legislator of our country may consider amending the patent law of our country according to the practice of the United States.
【學位授予單位】：華東政法大學
【學位級別】：碩士
【學位授予年份】：2012
【分類號】：D971.2;D923.42

【相似文獻】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 吳牧;吳健;;刑法中侵犯專利權(quán)犯罪的探究與完善[J];江南社會學院學報;2006年04期

2 康添雄;;美國專利間接侵權(quán)研究[J];重慶工學院學報;2006年06期

3 陳愛萍;;淺論專利權(quán)的刑法保護[J];政法學刊;2006年06期

4 從輝;;專利權(quán)刑法保護若干問題研究[J];法制與經(jīng)濟(下半月);2008年06期

5 肖彥山,高海榮,董迎春;專利權(quán)保護與濫用市場支配地位[J];石家莊經(jīng)濟學院學報;2004年01期

6 徐關(guān)壽;;有關(guān)專利問題答讀者問(六)[J];今日科技;1985年09期

7 梁志文;;專利權(quán)例外的國際標準——TRIPs協(xié)議第30條及其適用[J];電子知識產(chǎn)權(quán);2007年01期

8 李正清;專利介紹[J];中國建材裝備;2000年02期

9 馮曉青,馮曄;新專利法在加強專利權(quán)保護方面的完善[J];上海市政法管理干部學院學報;2001年03期

10 牛春燕;;專利權(quán)的合理界線——在個人利益與公眾利益之間尋求平衡[J];經(jīng)濟研究導刊;2009年18期

相關(guān)會議論文 前10條

1 ;專利風險防范三步法TPRP之一——房地產(chǎn)開發(fā)企業(yè)專利法律風險預防與控制之道[A];實施國家知識產(chǎn)權(quán)戰(zhàn)略，促進專利代理行業(yè)發(fā)展-2010年中華全國專利代理人協(xié)會年會暨首屆知識產(chǎn)權(quán)論壇論文集[C];2010年

2 高敏;;簡述中國與部分東盟國家專利法律制度之比較[A];使命與發(fā)展——第四屆西部律師發(fā)展論壇論文集[C];2011年

3 付建軍;袁s

本文編號：1574849