本文選題：方法專利　切入點：拆分實施　出處：《浙江師范大學》2016年碩士論文

【摘要】：方法專利拆分實施行為是由數(shù)行為人分別實施方法專利各步驟,任一行為人皆未完成全部專利步驟,但數(shù)行為人行為整體包含全部專利步驟的行為。該行為形態(tài)多見于計算機軟件專利和商業(yè)方法專利等純方法專利中,由于其形態(tài)有別于一般專利侵權(quán)行為,而其構(gòu)成侵權(quán)的認定規(guī)則亦不明確,在理論研究及法律適用上均存在爭議,嚴重影響了專利制度功能的實現(xiàn),因而在美國學界引發(fā)了大量的討論。我國專利侵權(quán)認定邏輯雖與美國相似,但缺少對方法專利拆分實施行為的相關侵權(quán)認定規(guī)則,美國方法專利拆分實施行為侵權(quán)認定規(guī)則的研究成果對我國處理這一問題有很強的借鑒意義。在我國的專利制度中將美國現(xiàn)行的控制或指揮規(guī)則本土化將能進一步厘清專利領域內(nèi)直接侵權(quán)與共同侵權(quán)的界限,在紛繁復雜的技術變遷中嚴守全面覆蓋原則這一底線,避免不當擴張專利權(quán)范圍的同時也確保權(quán)利人正當利益的實現(xiàn),以達到專利權(quán)人與一般公眾間的利益均衡。論文主要分為三個部分：第一部分指出方法專利拆分實施行為侵權(quán)認定面臨的困境。專利權(quán)利要求的撰寫邏輯與方法專利拆分實施行為自身的特點決定了,方法專利拆分實施行為的侵權(quán)認定是一個較為特殊的侵權(quán)法問題。而方法專利拆分實施行為的侵權(quán)認定規(guī)則之所以會成為一個理論與實踐難點,宏觀層面的問題在于方法專利拆分實施行為中直接侵權(quán)認定困難。方法專利拆分實施這一可能構(gòu)成侵權(quán)的行為形態(tài)沖擊了傳統(tǒng)方法專利侵權(quán)認定理論,傳統(tǒng)方法專利直接侵權(quán)認定強調(diào)全面覆蓋原則的適用而并未明確表明行為人數(shù)量；但在涉及數(shù)行為人拆分實施一項方法專利時,又有單一主體原則這一隱形要求,從而造成全面覆蓋原則難以直接適用。而共同侵權(quán)規(guī)則和間接侵權(quán)規(guī)則的適用又會引發(fā)專利侵權(quán)認定邏輯混亂,也無法有效地解決方法專利拆分實施行為情境下直接侵權(quán)認定的難題。因此,需要重新思考方法專利拆分實施行為侵權(quán)認定規(guī)則的構(gòu)建方向。第二部分主要介紹方法專利拆分實施行為侵權(quán)認定規(guī)則的演進歷程及其啟示。關于方法專利拆分實施行為的研究早已在美國建立,并取得了豐富的成果。經(jīng)過早期的討論之后,構(gòu)成侵權(quán)的方法專利拆分實施行為被定性為直接侵權(quán),而不是共同侵權(quán),即便它包含數(shù)個行為人也僅由被告一人承擔侵權(quán)責任。方法專利拆分實施行為侵權(quán)認定的核心在于數(shù)行為人間的聯(lián)結(jié)關系,而根據(jù)構(gòu)成侵權(quán)的聯(lián)結(jié)關系要求的不同,方法專利拆分實施行為侵權(quán)認定規(guī)則主要分為代理關系說、某種程度聯(lián)結(jié)關系說、參與結(jié)合行為說和控制或指揮規(guī)則�？刂苹蛑笓]規(guī)則是以上規(guī)則中較為妥實的侵權(quán)認定規(guī)則,但方法專利拆分實施行為侵權(quán)認定規(guī)則的發(fā)展的主要動力來源于案件,規(guī)則的提出和解釋多是為了處理案件的現(xiàn)實需要,往往缺少系統(tǒng)的討論。在這樣的背景下控制或指揮規(guī)則也存在邏輯矛盾、內(nèi)容不明確的缺陷,并對后續(xù)案件的處理產(chǎn)生了不良影響。針對這一問題,各級法院在實踐中取得的控制或指揮規(guī)則的新發(fā)展可為進一步完善控制或指揮規(guī)則提供指導。第三部分探討了我國方法專利拆分實施行為侵權(quán)認定的模式存在的問題,并借鑒控制或指揮規(guī)則提出具體的規(guī)則完善建議。具體到我國專利制度和侵權(quán)法制度,我國在進行方法專利拆分實施行為侵權(quán)認定時存在的問題首先是我國并無針對方法專利拆分實施行為侵權(quán)認定的專門規(guī)則,其次是實務中一般將拆分實施作為共同侵權(quán)處理。然而這樣的做法不僅忽視了專利侵權(quán)的認定邏輯,且混淆了專利直接侵權(quán)與共同侵權(quán)的界限,并不恰當亦不公平。我國應借鑒美國引入控制或指揮規(guī)則,并從美國司法界取得的經(jīng)驗教訓中獲得啟示對該規(guī)則進行適當?shù)恼{(diào)整以實現(xiàn)專利權(quán)人利益和公共利益的平衡,并完善與侵權(quán)認定規(guī)則有關的制度,保障規(guī)則發(fā)揮效用。
[Abstract]:The implementation of split method patent acts by acts were the implementation of each step method patent, any behavior person did not complete patent behavior but the number of steps, including all the steps of the whole patent behavior. The behavior in the form of computer software patent and the patent of business method patent and pure method, because of its shape is different from the general patent infringement, and the recognition rules of tort is not clear, in the theoretical research and application of law are controversial, affecting the realization of the function of patent system, thus in American academia has caused a lot of discussion. China's patent infringement is logic similar to those in the United States, but the lack of implementation of tort behavior the method of patent resolution that the rules of American research method patent infringement act split rules have great significance for China to deal with this problem In the patent system of our country the current control or command will be able to further clarify the rules of localization in the field of patent direct infringement and joint infringement boundaries, in technology changes in the complex to the principle of comprehensive coverage of the bottom line at the same time, to avoid improper expansion of patent scope is to ensure the realization of the legitimate interests of the right people. In order to achieve the balance of interests between the patentee and the general public. This thesis is divided into three parts: the first part points out the method of patent infringement behavior split implementation difficulties. Write the logic and method of patent resolution for patent rights implementation features decide their own behavior, infringement of Patent Act is a split a special tort law. And the method of patent infringement behavior of the implementation of resolution rules has become a difficulty in theory and practice, macro The level of the problem is the method patent direct infringement behavior in the implementation of resolution to recognize the difficulty. The implementation of this resolution method patent infringement may constitute a form of the impact of the traditional method of patent infringement theory, the traditional method of patent infringement is directly emphasized the principle of comprehensive coverage and did not explicitly indicate that the number of people involved in the act; but the number of people split the implementation behavior a method of patent, and the principle of the single subject contact, resulting in the principle of comprehensive coverage is difficult to directly apply. For joint tort rules and rules of indirect infringement of patent infringement will lead to confusion of logic, can effectively solve the problem of the implementation of resolution method patent infringement behavior situation directly. Therefore, the need to rethink the implementation of patent infringement behavior method split rule construction direction. The second part mainly introduces the party The evolution of patent infringement act split rules and its enlightenment. Research on the method of patent resolution implementation behavior already established in the United States, and achieved fruitful results. After the early discussions, a method of patent infringement act resolution is defined as the direct infringement, rather than infringement, even if it contains a number of the behavior of people is only the first defendant shall assume the tort liability. The patent infringement behavior of the implementation of the core resolution is the link between the number of human behavior, and according to the requirements of the different links of infringement, patent infringement behavior method resolution implementation rules mainly divided into agency relation, some degree of connection that participates in the binding behavior and control or command or command control rules. The rules are right infringement rules of the above rules, but the split method patent implementation Acts of infringement of the main power source of the development of the rule in the case, the proposed rule and explain the realistic need to deal with cases, often lack of systematic discussion. Control or command rules in this context are logical contradiction, defects of the content is not clear, adverse effects and the subsequent handling of the case. To solve this problem, the new development of the courts at all levels have achieved in practice control or command rules can provide guidance for the further improvement of control or command rules. The third part discusses the existing problems of the infringement behavior model of patent in China and reference resolution method, control or command rules put forward specific suggestions to the specific rules. China's patent system and tort law system, our country exists in the implementation of the act of infringement of patent method resolution. The problem is firstly in China for no special method The resolution of the implementation of specialized rules of conduct for infringement, followed by general practice will split the implementation of joint tort. However, as this approach not only ignored the patent infringement cognizance logic, and the confusion of the patent direct infringement and joint infringement boundaries, inappropriate and unfair. China should learn from the United States into the control command or rules get inspiration, make appropriate adjustments to the rules to achieve the interests of the patentee and the public interest balance lessons learned from the United States and the judiciary, and perfect the related infringement rule system, security rules play a role.

【學位授予單位】：浙江師范大學
【學位級別】：碩士
【學位授予年份】：2016
【分類號】：D923.42

【相似文獻】

相關期刊論文 前10條

1 楊士富,姜德剛,周軍;論名譽侵權(quán)認定及處理[J];遼寧工學院學報(社會科學版);1999年02期

2 王華棟;馮棟;;明星模仿的侵權(quán)認定與例外——以形象權(quán)保護為視角[J];遼寧公安司法管理干部學院學報;2009年04期

3 徐磊;;商標侵權(quán)認定中的主觀因素[J];中華商標;2010年09期

4 徐磊;;商標侵權(quán)認定中的主觀因素[J];中華商標;2010年11期

5 許一鳴;名譽侵權(quán)認定及處理過程中的幾個問題[J];律師世界;1997年03期

6 馮克法;;論混淆在我國商標侵權(quán)認定中的地位和作用[J];法制與社會;2013年16期

7 史良才;;軟件侵權(quán)認定的間接判斷法[J];中國發(fā)明與專利;2009年06期

8 黃逸凡;;網(wǎng)頁元標簽商標侵權(quán)認定[J];經(jīng)濟視角(下);2011年09期

9 鄭惠元;;計算機軟件著作權(quán)侵權(quán)認定問題探析[J];福建法學;2008年02期

10 鄭惠元;;計算機軟件著作權(quán)侵權(quán)認定問題研究[J];天津市政法管理干部學院學報;2008年01期

相關會議論文 前1條

1 潘聰;;淺議PCT譯文錯誤文本授權(quán)后的無效和侵權(quán)認定[A];發(fā)展知識產(chǎn)權(quán)服務業(yè)，，支撐創(chuàng)新型國家建設-2012年中華全國專利代理人協(xié)會年會第三屆知識產(chǎn)權(quán)論壇論文選編(第一部分)[C];2011年

相關重要報紙文章 前10條

1 北京市高級人民法院 謝甄珂;證明商標的權(quán)利范圍及侵權(quán)認定[N];中國知識產(chǎn)權(quán)報;2013年

2 山東省煙臺市工商局法制科科長、2013年全國工商行政管理系統(tǒng)法制專家型人才培訓班學員 于春輝;商標執(zhí)法中特殊情形的侵權(quán)認定[N];中國工商報;2013年

3 本報記者 胡姝陽 通訊員 黃艷萍;孝感 實事求是 明確侵權(quán)認定標準[N];中國知識產(chǎn)權(quán)報;2014年

4 劉淼;來源不明產(chǎn)品的侵權(quán)認定[N];江蘇法制報;2013年

5 廣州市中級人民法院 王維;保護作品完整權(quán)的侵權(quán)認定標準[N];中國知識產(chǎn)權(quán)報;2014年

6 陳晨;涉嫌“抄襲”音樂作品的侵權(quán)認定[N];法制日報;2012年

7 宜興工商局 唐穎智;對商標侵權(quán)認定的再認識[N];江蘇經(jīng)濟報;2012年

8 本報記者 哈妮帕;網(wǎng)游抄襲 侵權(quán)認定難[N];中國新聞出版報;2012年

9 北京市第二中級人民法院 李丹;顏色組合商標的侵權(quán)認定[N];中國知識產(chǎn)權(quán)報;2014年

10 上海市第二中級人民法院 胡宓;非典型性平行進口中的商標侵權(quán)認定[N];中國知識產(chǎn)權(quán)報;2013年

相關碩士學位論文 前10條

1 粱釗;論加框鏈接的著作權(quán)屬性與侵權(quán)認定[D];中國政法大學;2015年

2 陸晴;方法專利拆分實施行為侵權(quán)認定研究[D];浙江師范大學;2016年

3 李進付;商標侵權(quán)認定理論的擴張[D];華東政法大學;2008年

4 李艷靈;隱性商標侵權(quán)認定研究[D];西南政法大學;2010年

5 龍海濤;論商標侵權(quán)認定中的混淆可能性標準[D];西南政法大學;2015年

6 石友華;專利侵權(quán)認定標準研究[D];首都經(jīng)濟貿(mào)易大學;2013年

7 付婷;計算機軟件著作權(quán)侵權(quán)認定案例研究[D];上海交通大學;2011年

8 林芝;專利侵權(quán)認定若干問題研究[D];湖南大學;2009年

9 郭桂峰;論專利侵權(quán)認定[D];華東政法學院;2006年

10 王雪樺;計算機軟件研發(fā)中的侵權(quán)認定[D];煙臺大學;2012年

本文編號：1718993