本文選題：等同原則　切入點：聯(lián)想容易性　出處：《深圳大學(xué)》2017年碩士論文　論文類型：學(xué)位論文

【摘要】：全面覆蓋原則作為專利侵權(quán)判定的基本規(guī)則,需得被指控侵權(quán)行為完全落入權(quán)利要求書之范圍,方可構(gòu)成侵權(quán)。此舉可能因行為人刻意制造的所謂"差異"而逾越權(quán)利要求書的界限,因囿于權(quán)利要求的字面含義而規(guī)避侵權(quán)責(zé)任。為此,美國法院在長期實踐中,歸結(jié)出等同原則,在一定程度上彌補全面覆蓋原則的不足。因此,建立因行為人以方式、功能和效果的相同或基本相同的行為模式成就技術(shù)效果實際等同而構(gòu)成侵權(quán)的規(guī)則,讓權(quán)利人的利益獲得實質(zhì)保障。我國司法實踐中,對等同原則的適用,采取"功能-方式-效果"的"三一致"標準。該標準雖然適時的解決了大部分機械、電學(xué)領(lǐng)域的等同問題,但在化學(xué)領(lǐng)域的應(yīng)用當(dāng)中存在例外情況,特別是隨著科技的精細化和發(fā)明的復(fù)雜化,三一致標準的不足逐步突顯。本文從等同原則基本理論出發(fā),將等同原則置于專利侵權(quán)判定規(guī)則的前提下,指出與全面覆蓋原則相對應(yīng)的這一原則對實質(zhì)保護權(quán)利人利益的積極效果和意義;以案例和數(shù)據(jù)為基礎(chǔ),分析歸結(jié)出實踐中存在的適用困境;又基于等同原則構(gòu)成要素和條件的分析,指出這些要素和條件對于等同原則適用的一般性要求;鑒于我國"三一致標準"的現(xiàn)實難題,提出完善非實質(zhì)性差異標準和殲降低聯(lián)想容易性程度的思考。
[Abstract]:The principle of full coverage, as the basic rule for the adjudication of patent infringement, requires that the alleged infringement fall entirely within the scope of the claim, This act may exceed the limits of the claim because of the so-called "difference" deliberately created by the perpetrator, and circumvent the liability for infringement because of the literal meaning of the claim. For this reason, the United States courts have been in practice for a long time. Summing up the principle of equivalence, to a certain extent to make up for the deficiency of the principle of total coverage. In the judicial practice of our country, the application of the principle of equivalence adopts the "Trinity" standard of "function-method-effect". This standard has solved most of the machinery in good time. The problem of equivalence in the field of electricity, but there are exceptions in the application of chemistry, especially with the refinement of science and technology and the complication of invention, the deficiency of the standard of trinity is gradually highlighted. Under the premise of patent infringement determination rule, this paper points out the positive effect and significance of the principle corresponding to the principle of total coverage on the substantive protection of the interests of the obligee, which is based on cases and data. Based on the analysis of the constituent elements and conditions of the principle of equivalence, the author points out the general requirements for the application of these elements and conditions to the principle of equivalence. Put forward to improve the standard of non-substantive difference and reduce the associative ease of thinking.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：深圳大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2017
【分類號】：D923.42

【參考文獻】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前4條

1 楊志敏;;德國法院對專利等同原則的適用及其啟示[J];法商研究;2011年04期

2 顧明華;張勇;;論專利侵權(quán)認定中等同原則的作用[J];東疆學(xué)刊;2008年02期

3 馮曉青;;知識產(chǎn)權(quán)法的價值構(gòu)造:知識產(chǎn)權(quán)法利益平衡機制研究[J];中國法學(xué);2007年01期

4 馮曉青;專利法利益平衡機制之探討[J];鄭州大學(xué)學(xué)報(哲學(xué)社會科學(xué)版);2005年03期

，

本文編號：1589697