本文選題：新產(chǎn)品制造方法 + 專利保護(hù)�。� 參考：《華東政法大學(xué)》2012年碩士論文

【摘要】：隨著我國(guó)經(jīng)濟(jì)轉(zhuǎn)型的逐漸深化以及國(guó)家對(duì)知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)的日益重視，我國(guó)專利事業(yè)取得了長(zhǎng)足發(fā)展，專利法律制度也日臻完善。但是在專利侵權(quán)訴訟中，，尤其是在新產(chǎn)品制造方法專利侵權(quán)訴訟中，還存在著很多法律適用方面的爭(zhēng)議和問(wèn)題。雖然最高院2009年發(fā)布了《最高人民法院關(guān)于審理侵犯專利權(quán)糾紛案件應(yīng)用法律若干問(wèn)題的解釋》，但是該解釋依然未能解決我國(guó)在新產(chǎn)品制造方法專利司法保護(hù)中存在的許多深層次問(wèn)題。本文系統(tǒng)討論了新產(chǎn)品制造方法專利保護(hù)制度所存在的諸多問(wèn)題及成因，并在借鑒國(guó)外相關(guān)司法實(shí)踐的基礎(chǔ)上提出完善相應(yīng)法律制度的建設(shè)性意見(jiàn)。 基于以上研究思路，本文研究?jī)?nèi)容主要包括以下三章： 第一章分析了新產(chǎn)品制造方法專利保護(hù)制度的整體構(gòu)成并探討了制度背后的理論基礎(chǔ)。 第二章探討了新產(chǎn)品制造方法專利保護(hù)制度在司法實(shí)踐中所存在的主要問(wèn)題及問(wèn)題成因。主要從方法專利“延伸保護(hù)”制度以及新產(chǎn)品制造方法專利舉證責(zé)任倒置制度兩個(gè)方面進(jìn)行研究。認(rèn)為方法專利延伸保護(hù)制度所存在的主要問(wèn)題在于對(duì)“延伸保護(hù)范圍”的界定過(guò)于狹窄；而在新產(chǎn)品制造方法專利舉證責(zé)任倒置制度方面所存在的主要問(wèn)題包括四個(gè)方面：第一、相關(guān)法律制度適用過(guò)程中對(duì)于“新產(chǎn)品”和“相同產(chǎn)品”的認(rèn)定存在問(wèn)題；第二、舉證責(zé)任倒置制度與商業(yè)秘密的保護(hù)存在沖突；第三、舉證責(zé)任倒置制度缺乏時(shí)效規(guī)定，容易導(dǎo)致制度的濫用，從而侵犯公眾利益；第四、新產(chǎn)品制造方法專利保護(hù)舉證過(guò)程中司法鑒定程序存在問(wèn)題，司法鑒定結(jié)論缺乏公信力。 第三章結(jié)合方法專利“延伸保護(hù)”制度與新產(chǎn)品制造方法專利舉證責(zé)任倒置制度的國(guó)外司法實(shí)踐，提出解決我國(guó)新產(chǎn)品制造方法專利保護(hù)制度所存在問(wèn)題的基本思路，并提出了完善制度的具體構(gòu)想。在方法專利“延伸保護(hù)范圍”界定方面，建議改變狹義的認(rèn)定標(biāo)準(zhǔn)，引入“本性損害檢驗(yàn)法”概念，結(jié)合美國(guó)專利法實(shí)踐，合理擴(kuò)大我國(guó)方法專利“延伸保護(hù)”制度保護(hù)的范圍；在新產(chǎn)品制造方法舉證責(zé)任倒置制度方面，主要提出了三個(gè)方面建議：首先，在舉證責(zé)任倒置制度判定標(biāo)準(zhǔn)方面，建議采用《TRIPS協(xié)議》第三十四條方案（b），避免過(guò)于復(fù)雜的判定過(guò)程；其次，在舉證責(zé)任倒置制度時(shí)效設(shè)置方面，建議建立分類具體的舉證責(zé)任倒置制度適用時(shí)效體系，實(shí)現(xiàn)方法專利權(quán)人利益與公眾利益的平衡；最后，在新產(chǎn)品制造方法專利中核心的技術(shù)問(wèn)題判定環(huán)節(jié)，建議出臺(tái)具體的知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)司法鑒定規(guī)則，建立健全的知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)司法鑒定相關(guān)制度，提高專利訴訟的效率和公正性。
[Abstract]:With the deepening of China's economic transformation and the increasing attention paid to intellectual property rights, the patent industry in China has made great progress, and the patent legal system is also becoming more and more perfect. But in the patent infringement litigation, especially in the new product manufacturing method patent infringement litigation, there are still many disputes and problems in the application of the law. Although the Supreme people's Court issued the interpretation of the Supreme people's Court on the Application of Law in cases of Patent infringement in 2009, this interpretation still fails to solve the problem of judicial protection of patent for new product manufacturing methods in China. There are many deep problems. This paper systematically discusses the problems and causes of patent protection system of new product manufacturing methods, and puts forward some constructive suggestions on how to perfect the corresponding legal system on the basis of drawing lessons from the relevant judicial practice in foreign countries. Based on the above research ideas, this paper mainly includes the following three chapters: the first chapter analyzes the overall composition of the patent protection system of new product manufacturing methods and discusses the theoretical basis behind the system. The second chapter discusses the main problems and causes of the patent protection system in the judicial practice. This paper mainly studies the extension protection system of method patent and the inverted burden of proof system of new product manufacturing method patent. The main problem of the method patent extension protection system is that the definition of "extended protection scope" is too narrow; There are four main problems in the reverse system of burden of proof in the new product manufacturing method patent: first, there are problems in the identification of "new product" and "same product" in the process of application of relevant legal system; second, there are problems in the identification of the "new product" and "the same product" in the process of application of the relevant legal system. The system of inversion of burden of proof and the protection of trade secrets conflict; third, the system of inversion of burden of proof is short of statute of limitations, which can easily lead to the abuse of the system, thus infringing the public interest; fourth, There are some problems in the procedure of forensic identification in the process of patent protection of new product manufacturing method, and the conclusion of judicial expertise lacks credibility. The third chapter puts forward the basic ideas to solve the problems existing in the patent protection system of new product manufacturing method, combining with the foreign judicial practice of the "extended protection" system of method patent and the inversion of the burden of proof of the new product manufacturing method patent. And put forward the concrete idea of perfecting the system. In the definition of "extended scope of protection" of method patent, it is suggested to change the narrow identification standard, introduce the concept of "nature damage test", and combine with the practice of patent law in the United States. This paper reasonably expands the scope of the "extended protection" system of the method patent in our country, and puts forward three suggestions on the inversion of the burden of proof in the new product manufacturing method: first, in the judgment standard of the inverted system of the burden of proof, It is suggested to adopt Article 34 of trips Agreement to avoid too complicated judgment process. Secondly, in the aspect of prescription setting of burden of proof inversion system, it is suggested to establish a specific prescription system for inversion of burden of proof system. Realizing the balance between the interests of the method patentee and the public interest. Finally, it is suggested that specific rules for the judicial identification of intellectual property should be issued in the key technical issues in the patent for the manufacturing method of new products. Establish a sound system of intellectual property judicial expertise, improve the efficiency and fairness of patent litigation.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：華東政法大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2012
【分類號(hào)】：D923.42;D997.1

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前7條

1 盧山;論方法專利侵權(quán)訴訟中舉證責(zé)任分配[J];電子知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán);2005年02期

2 梁勇;;專利侵權(quán)訴訟中的舉證責(zé)任倒置[J];中國(guó)發(fā)明與專利;2006年10期

3 蔣洪義;;藥品方法專利侵權(quán)憂思錄(下)——從法國(guó)阿文—蒂斯公司訴江蘇恒瑞公司“多西他賽”專利侵權(quán)案談起[J];中國(guó)發(fā)明與專利;2007年09期

4 蔣志培;;知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)審判中證據(jù)認(rèn)定應(yīng)把握的幾個(gè)問(wèn)題[J];中國(guó)審判;2006年04期

5 江波;張金平;;我國(guó)知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)司法鑒定的思考——以“富比”案中知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)司法鑒定為視角[J];知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán);2009年03期

6 楊志平;;小議舉證責(zé)任倒置在知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)訴訟中的擴(kuò)大適用[J];科技咨詢導(dǎo)報(bào);2007年26期

7 何a魑

本文編號(hào)：2034760