本文選題：知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)　切入點(diǎn)：三審合一制度　出處：《湘潭大學(xué)》2011年碩士論文　論文類型：學(xué)位論文

【摘要】：知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)“三審合一”制度,是指將知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)案件統(tǒng)一交由知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)庭進(jìn)行管轄,不再根據(jù)現(xiàn)有訴訟法的規(guī)定和法院內(nèi)部機(jī)構(gòu)職能由不同的審判庭進(jìn)行審理的制度。 傳統(tǒng)的“三審分立”制度在知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)審判實(shí)踐中存在著很多弊端,各國根據(jù)知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)的特點(diǎn)結(jié)合自己的國情創(chuàng)建了符合自己情況的知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)審判模式,這些模式的相同之處就是知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)“三審合一”:在日本有知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)高等法院,在德國有德國聯(lián)邦專利法院,在英國亦有知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)專業(yè)法院。根據(jù)理論和實(shí)踐的分析,在現(xiàn)有四種知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)審判機(jī)構(gòu)模式中,筆者認(rèn)為設(shè)立知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)庭更加符合我國國情。雖然設(shè)立知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)法院的審判模式也具有很多優(yōu)點(diǎn),但由于我國的法院體制改革涉及很多理論和現(xiàn)實(shí)的問題,建立知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)法院的審判模式要對(duì)我國的憲法和訴訟法等法律做出大幅度的修改,涉及面太寬。在我國《國家知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)戰(zhàn)略綱要》中已經(jīng)提到了設(shè)立“知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)庭”的政策,而且我國已經(jīng)存在了大量的試點(diǎn)可以提供實(shí)踐經(jīng)驗(yàn)。在知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)庭的試點(diǎn)確定了知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)“三審合一”制度的模式后,知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)庭內(nèi)部制度的構(gòu)建以及程序的銜接還存在一些問題。 在文章中,筆者首先闡述了我國知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)審判的現(xiàn)狀,即對(duì)知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)審判實(shí)踐中“三審分立”制度的應(yīng)用存在的弊端做了具體分析;其次,分析了與知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)“三審分立”制度相對(duì)應(yīng)的知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)“三審合一制度”在理論層面上的可行性。最后,對(duì)國內(nèi)外的“三審合一”制度的模式進(jìn)行了分析比較,為我國的知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)“三審合一”模式的建立提供參考。在國內(nèi)外實(shí)踐成功的基礎(chǔ)上和有利的理論基礎(chǔ)上,筆者提出建議:實(shí)行知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)審判“三審合一”制度,建立知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)庭,統(tǒng)一知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)庭的名稱,將知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)庭從民三庭中劃分出來,建立正式的知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)庭。并根據(jù)國內(nèi)外的經(jīng)驗(yàn)和我國的實(shí)際情況,對(duì)知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)庭內(nèi)部具體制度如何設(shè)置提出一些建議,包括:涉及知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)問題的三種類型的案件的審判程序如何銜接,知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)中技術(shù)事實(shí)查明制度的設(shè)置,行政機(jī)關(guān)的授權(quán)、行政確權(quán)在訴訟中的設(shè)置,從而實(shí)現(xiàn)知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)“三審合一”的合理建構(gòu)。
[Abstract]:The "triple trial" system of intellectual property rights refers to the system in which intellectual property rights cases are handed over to the intellectual property court under the jurisdiction of the intellectual property court and are no longer tried by different divisions according to the provisions of the existing procedural law and the functions of the internal organs of the court. The traditional system of "separation of third instance" has many drawbacks in the practice of intellectual property trial. According to the characteristics of intellectual property rights, countries have created a trial mode of intellectual property rights according to their own conditions. What these models have in common is the "triple trial" of intellectual property: the High Court of intellectual property in Japan, the German Federal Patent Court in Germany, and the specialized Court of intellectual property in the United Kingdom. Among the four existing modes of intellectual property judicial institutions, the author thinks that the establishment of intellectual property courts is more in line with the national conditions of our country. Although the trial mode of setting up intellectual property courts also has many advantages, However, since the reform of the court system in our country involves many theoretical and practical issues, the establishment of the trial mode of the intellectual property court should substantially modify the laws of our country, such as the constitution and the procedural law. The scope is too wide. The policy of setting up an "intellectual property court" has already been mentioned in the National intellectual property Strategic outline of China. Moreover, there are already a large number of pilot projects in China that can provide practical experience. After the trial of the intellectual property Tribunal has determined the model of the "triple trial" system of intellectual property rights, There are still some problems in the construction of the internal system of intellectual property court and the connection of procedure. In this paper, the author first expounds the current situation of intellectual property trial in China, that is, the disadvantages of the application of the system of "separation of third instance" in the practice of intellectual property trial are analyzed concretely. This paper analyzes the theoretical feasibility of the system of "triple trial in one" of intellectual property, which corresponds to the system of separation of third instance of intellectual property. Finally, it analyzes and compares the mode of "three trials in one" at home and abroad. This paper provides a reference for the establishment of the mode of "triple trial" of intellectual property rights in our country. On the basis of the successful practice at home and abroad and the favorable theoretical basis, the author puts forward some suggestions: to implement the system of "triple trial" of intellectual property rights. Establishing an intellectual property court, unifying the name of the intellectual property court, dividing the intellectual property court from the three chambers of the people, establishing a formal intellectual property court, and according to the domestic and foreign experience and the actual situation in our country, Some suggestions on how to set up a specific system within the intellectual property court are put forward, including: how to link up the trial procedures of the three types of cases involving intellectual property issues, the setting up of a system for ascertaining technical facts in intellectual property rights, and the authorization of administrative organs, The establishment of administrative confirmation right in litigation, so as to realize the rational construction of intellectual property rights.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：湘潭大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2011
【分類號(hào)】：D926.2;D923.4

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 ;最高人民法院關(guān)于全面加強(qiáng)知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)審判工作為建設(shè)創(chuàng)新型國家提供司法保障的意見[J];中華商標(biāo);2007年02期

2 章武生,楊嚴(yán)炎;德國民事訴訟制度改革之評(píng)析[J];比較法研究;2003年01期

3 閆文軍;日本知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)審判情況概要[J];電子知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán);2005年03期

4 肖海棠;;關(guān)于知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)審理模式的探析與思考——以廣東知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)審判為視角(待續(xù))[J];電子知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán);2006年09期

5 周曉冰;張玲玲;;知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)案件專業(yè)技術(shù)問題解決路徑探討——以“三人技術(shù)組、五人合議庭”審判模式為例[J];電子知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán);2009年12期

6 沈強(qiáng);;從“三審合一”到知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)專門法院 兼論知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)審判模式和體制的改革[J];電子知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán);2010年08期

7 鄭惠元;;侵犯知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)犯罪與刑事和解之適用——法經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)分析與制度建構(gòu)[J];福建法學(xué);2009年04期

8 孫海龍;;知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)審判體制改革的理論思考與路徑選擇[J];法律適用;2010年09期

9 郭壽康;李劍;;我國知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)審判組織專門化問題研究——以德國聯(lián)邦專利法院為視角[J];法學(xué)家;2008年03期

10 趙鋼;王杏飛;;民事司法改革的幾個(gè)前沿問題——以《人民法院第二個(gè)五年改革綱要(2004-2008)》為分析對(duì)象[J];法學(xué)評(píng)論;2006年06期

相關(guān)重要報(bào)紙文章 前4條

1 中國社科院知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)中心主任 鄭成思;[N];經(jīng)濟(jì)參考報(bào);2004年

2 中國人民大學(xué)法學(xué)院教授、博士生導(dǎo)師 江 偉 中國人民大學(xué)法學(xué)院法學(xué)博士生 范躍如;[N];人民法院報(bào);2005年

3 重慶高院審委會(huì)專職委員、知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)審判理論專業(yè)委員會(huì)副秘書長 孫海龍;[N];人民法院報(bào);2009年

4 張玉瑞 韓秀成;[N];中國知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)報(bào);2006年

相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前3條

1 于春梅;論知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)保護(hù)的哲學(xué)依據(jù)及其方法論措施[D];大連理工大學(xué);2002年

2 李學(xué)輝;關(guān)于建立我國統(tǒng)一知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)上訴法院問題的研究[D];華中師范大學(xué);2006年

3 甘海濤;論知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)法院之構(gòu)建[D];青島大學(xué);2009年

，

本文編號(hào)：1576184