本文選題：專利侵權(quán)訴訟 + 臨時(shí)禁令�。� 參考：《對(duì)外經(jīng)濟(jì)貿(mào)易大學(xué)》2006年碩士論文

【摘要】：停止侵犯專利權(quán)臨時(shí)措施制度的建立是以我國(guó)加入世貿(mào)組織,滿足TRIPS協(xié)定的要求為時(shí)代背景的,這一新制度的建設(shè)還處于起步階段,不少問題有待明確。本文意在通過介紹、比較美國(guó)和我國(guó)專利侵權(quán)訴訟中的臨時(shí)禁令制度,以及TRIPS協(xié)定的相關(guān)規(guī)定,對(duì)該制度的歷史發(fā)展、禁令審查的考慮因素,程序規(guī)則進(jìn)行闡述,并結(jié)合我國(guó)司法實(shí)踐中的相應(yīng)問題展開討論。筆者認(rèn)為,首先,應(yīng)在立法上對(duì)停止侵犯專利權(quán)臨時(shí)措施制度中的一些規(guī)定予以明確和具體化,例如,禁令審查時(shí)各考慮因素的衡量標(biāo)準(zhǔn),擔(dān)保方式和數(shù)額的確定,禁令的解除、對(duì)錯(cuò)誤禁令申請(qǐng)的損害賠償?shù)取Ｆ浯?相關(guān)法律和司法解釋在一些方面仍缺乏可操作性,如法院須在收到申請(qǐng)后48小時(shí)內(nèi)裁定核發(fā)或不核發(fā)臨時(shí)禁令使得法院沒有足夠的時(shí)間對(duì)專利的有效性、是否存在侵權(quán)事實(shí)和難以彌補(bǔ)的損害、如何確定擔(dān)保數(shù)額等問題進(jìn)行審查。而程序上缺乏可操作性往往會(huì)影響實(shí)體審查標(biāo)準(zhǔn)的適用,因此有必要根據(jù)司法實(shí)踐的情況對(duì)此類規(guī)定進(jìn)行修訂和完善。再者,各國(guó)臨時(shí)禁令制度程序規(guī)則的不同使得我國(guó)法院在借鑒他國(guó)做法時(shí),比如引入臨時(shí)禁令的聽證程序,必須注意要與我國(guó)現(xiàn)行禁令制度的訴訟程序規(guī)則相銜接,以規(guī)范其操作及明確其法律效力。最后,注重收集整理判例,并要求法院在裁定書中就應(yīng)當(dāng)考量的因素闡明其準(zhǔn)予或駁回臨時(shí)禁令的具體原因,對(duì)規(guī)范、統(tǒng)一法院在臨時(shí)禁令案件中的司法實(shí)踐將有著非常積極的推動(dòng)作用。
[Abstract]:The establishment of the system of temporary measures to stop patent infringement is based on China's entry into the WTO and meets the requirements of the TRIPS Agreement. The construction of this new system is still in its infancy, and many problems need to be clarified.The purpose of this paper is to introduce and compare the temporary injunction system in patent infringement litigation between the United States and China, as well as the relevant provisions of the TRIPS Agreement, and to expound the historical development of the system, the considerations of the prohibition review, and the procedural rules.It also discusses the corresponding problems in judicial practice in our country.In my opinion, first of all, some provisions in the system of stoppage of patent infringement should be clearly defined and specified in legislation, for example, the measure of the factors taken into account in the review of the prohibition, the way of security and the determination of the amount.The lifting of an injunction, damages for an erroneous injunction, etc.Second, the relevant legal and judicial interpretations are still inoperable in some respects, such as the fact that the court has to decide within 48 hours of the receipt of the application that the granting or non-granting of an interim injunction does not allow the court sufficient time to be valid for the patent.Whether there are tort facts and irreparable damages, how to determine the amount of guarantee to be examined.However, the lack of maneuverability in procedure often affects the application of substantive review standard, so it is necessary to revise and perfect this kind of regulation according to the judicial practice.Furthermore, the different procedural rules of the interim injunction system in various countries make our courts draw lessons from the practice of other countries, such as introducing the hearing procedure of the interim injunction system, and we must pay attention to the connection with the procedural rules of the current injunction system of our country.In order to regulate its operation and clarify its legal effect.Finally, pay attention to collecting and sorting out the jurisprudence, and ask the court to clarify the specific reasons for granting or rejecting the provisional injunction in the ruling, and to clarify the specific reasons for granting or dismissing the interim injunction.The judicial practice of the unified court in the case of temporary injunction will play a very positive role.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：對(duì)外經(jīng)濟(jì)貿(mào)易大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2006
【分類號(hào)】：D925.1;D923.42

【引證文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前1條

1 潘姚琳;專利侵權(quán)訴訟中的臨時(shí)措施研究[D];寧波大學(xué);2012年

，

本文編號(hào)：1735369