論貼牌生產(chǎn)中專利侵權(quán)責(zé)任主體的認(rèn)定
發(fā)布時間：2019-04-27 16:25
【摘要】：由于專利法及相關(guān)司法解釋對于定作人委托承攬人貼牌生產(chǎn)的被訴侵權(quán)產(chǎn)品,如何認(rèn)定該產(chǎn)品的制造者的問題未作出明文規(guī)定,以致司法實踐對專利法意義上的“制造”理解千差萬別,使專利權(quán)人和社會公眾均無所適從。本文共分五部分。第一部分是對貼牌生產(chǎn)合同的性質(zhì)以及法律特征予以論述。OEM、ODM是貼牌生產(chǎn)合同的典型表現(xiàn)形式,但其缺乏固定的模式,并且不斷演變,但貼牌生產(chǎn)合同的性質(zhì)仍為承攬合同,其與買賣合同與商標(biāo)實施許可合同有著根本性的區(qū)別。第二部分就司法實踐對貼牌生產(chǎn)的專利產(chǎn)品制造者認(rèn)定的不同作法進行評述。不同法院對此有不同認(rèn)定,有認(rèn)定貼牌生產(chǎn)的定作人是專利產(chǎn)品的制造者的;也有認(rèn)定專利產(chǎn)品上識別性標(biāo)識的所有者是專利產(chǎn)品的制造者;有認(rèn)定實施的是共同制造行為,構(gòu)成共同侵權(quán)的;更有采納一般過錯責(zé)任理論,認(rèn)定專利產(chǎn)品的實際生產(chǎn)者或?qū)＠a(chǎn)品的制造起到教唆、幫助作用的為專利產(chǎn)品的制造者。本章對上述觀點進行了詳細(xì)的介紹與深入評論。第三部分論述了貼牌生產(chǎn)中承攬人專利侵權(quán)責(zé)任的認(rèn)定。承攬人專利侵權(quán)責(zé)任認(rèn)定與普通的專利侵權(quán)責(zé)任的認(rèn)定模式一致。專利侵權(quán)責(zé)任的歸責(zé)原則為嚴(yán)格化的過錯推定原則。根據(jù)普通專利侵權(quán)的構(gòu)成要件和認(rèn)定原則認(rèn)定承攬人是否構(gòu)成專利侵權(quán)。第四部分是重點,論述了貼牌生產(chǎn)中定作人專利侵權(quán)責(zé)任的認(rèn)定。通過對特殊侵權(quán)行為領(lǐng)域內(nèi)典型定作人侵權(quán)責(zé)任規(guī)范的體系化解釋,以及從有利于受害人救濟理論、利益平衡理論、風(fēng)險控制理論出發(fā),認(rèn)為定作人作為合同法上承攬合同中的制造者,應(yīng)承擔(dān)擅自制造專利產(chǎn)品的侵權(quán)責(zé)任。第五部分論述了定作人與承攬人之間的連帶責(zé)任與分別責(zé)任問題。如定作人與承攬人具有共同的意思聯(lián)絡(luò)或具有教唆、幫助情形,則由其承擔(dān)連帶責(zé)任。
[Abstract]:Because the patent law and the relevant judicial interpretation do not make explicit provisions on the question of how to identify the manufacturer of the product under suit which the hiree is entrusted by the hirer to produce under the license of the hirer, As a result, judicial practice has a very different understanding of "manufacture" in the sense of patent law, which makes patentees and the public at a loss. This paper is divided into five parts. The first part is to discuss the nature and legal characteristics of the label production contract. OEM, ODM is a typical manifestation of the label production contract, but it lacks a fixed model and continues to evolve. However, the nature of licensed production contract is still contract, and there is a fundamental difference between the contract of sale and the license contract of trademark implementation. In the second part, the author comments on the different practices of the manufacturer of patented products in the judicial practice. Different courts have found that the manufacturer of patent product, the owner of identifiable mark on patent product is the manufacturer of patent product, and the owner of identification mark on patent product is the manufacturer of patent product, and the manufacturer of patent product is found to be the manufacturer of patent product, and the owner of identification mark is the manufacturer of patent product. It also adopts the general fault liability theory to identify the actual producer of the patent product or the manufacturer of the patent product which plays the role of instigating and aiding the manufacture of the patent product. The author also adopts the general fault liability theory to identify the actual producer of the patent product or the manufacturer of the patent product which plays the role of abetting and aiding. This chapter has carried on the detailed introduction and the in-depth comment to the above views. The third part discusses the ascertainment of the hirer's patent tort liability in the production of sticker. The cognizance of the hiree's patent tort liability is consistent with that of the common patent infringement liability. The imputation principle of patent tort liability is strict fault presumption principle. Determine whether the hirer constitutes patent infringement or not according to the constituent elements and identification principles of common patent infringement. The fourth part focuses on the identification of patent infringement liability of the customizer in the production of sticker. Through the systematic interpretation of the norms of tort liability of typical customizers in the field of special tort, and starting from the theory of relief for victims, the theory of balance of interests, the theory of risk control, The author thinks that as the manufacturer of contract, the contractor should bear the tort liability of manufacturing patent products without authorization. The fifth part discusses the joint and several liability and the separate liability between the hirer and the hirer. If the hirer and the hiree have a joint intention contact or abet, the hirer shall be jointly and severally liable.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：寧波大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2014
【分類號】：D923.42
本文編號：2467128
[Abstract]:Because the patent law and the relevant judicial interpretation do not make explicit provisions on the question of how to identify the manufacturer of the product under suit which the hiree is entrusted by the hirer to produce under the license of the hirer, As a result, judicial practice has a very different understanding of "manufacture" in the sense of patent law, which makes patentees and the public at a loss. This paper is divided into five parts. The first part is to discuss the nature and legal characteristics of the label production contract. OEM, ODM is a typical manifestation of the label production contract, but it lacks a fixed model and continues to evolve. However, the nature of licensed production contract is still contract, and there is a fundamental difference between the contract of sale and the license contract of trademark implementation. In the second part, the author comments on the different practices of the manufacturer of patented products in the judicial practice. Different courts have found that the manufacturer of patent product, the owner of identifiable mark on patent product is the manufacturer of patent product, and the owner of identification mark on patent product is the manufacturer of patent product, and the manufacturer of patent product is found to be the manufacturer of patent product, and the owner of identification mark is the manufacturer of patent product. It also adopts the general fault liability theory to identify the actual producer of the patent product or the manufacturer of the patent product which plays the role of instigating and aiding the manufacture of the patent product. The author also adopts the general fault liability theory to identify the actual producer of the patent product or the manufacturer of the patent product which plays the role of abetting and aiding. This chapter has carried on the detailed introduction and the in-depth comment to the above views. The third part discusses the ascertainment of the hirer's patent tort liability in the production of sticker. The cognizance of the hiree's patent tort liability is consistent with that of the common patent infringement liability. The imputation principle of patent tort liability is strict fault presumption principle. Determine whether the hirer constitutes patent infringement or not according to the constituent elements and identification principles of common patent infringement. The fourth part focuses on the identification of patent infringement liability of the customizer in the production of sticker. Through the systematic interpretation of the norms of tort liability of typical customizers in the field of special tort, and starting from the theory of relief for victims, the theory of balance of interests, the theory of risk control, The author thinks that as the manufacturer of contract, the contractor should bear the tort liability of manufacturing patent products without authorization. The fifth part discusses the joint and several liability and the separate liability between the hirer and the hirer. If the hirer and the hiree have a joint intention contact or abet, the hirer shall be jointly and severally liable.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：寧波大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2014
【分類號】：D923.42
【參考文獻】
相關(guān)期刊論文 前1條
1 張斌;論現(xiàn)代立法中的利益平衡機制[J];清華大學(xué)學(xué)報(哲學(xué)社會科學(xué)版);2005年02期
，本文編號：2467128
本文鏈接：http://sikaile.net/falvlunwen/hetongqiyue/2467128.html
最近更新
教材專著
