【摘要】：在新一輪的科技革命和產(chǎn)業(yè)革命正在全世界范圍內(nèi)孕育的時(shí)代背景下,科技創(chuàng)新逐步成為國(guó)家發(fā)展的主要驅(qū)動(dòng)力。知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)作為一項(xiàng)具有極強(qiáng)獨(dú)占性的權(quán)利,必將成為保護(hù)科技創(chuàng)新成果的有力武器。而作為知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)立法核心的專(zhuān)利權(quán)制度,因其具有更強(qiáng)烈的壟斷性、更突出的創(chuàng)新性和更直接的經(jīng)濟(jì)性,將會(huì)是科技成果的最有力的保護(hù)工具。不過(guò),正是由于專(zhuān)利權(quán)的這種壟斷性和商業(yè)性,很容易導(dǎo)致權(quán)利人為了追求經(jīng)濟(jì)利益而過(guò)度使用權(quán)利,從而限制同行業(yè)對(duì)手的公平市場(chǎng)競(jìng)爭(zhēng)。這是有違專(zhuān)利制度的立法初衷的。對(duì)此,專(zhuān)利法中先用權(quán)制度則能夠很好地對(duì)抗過(guò)度使用的專(zhuān)利權(quán),維護(hù)市場(chǎng)競(jìng)爭(zhēng)者的合法利益,合理平衡專(zhuān)利權(quán)人與先用權(quán)人的權(quán)利。本文主要有五個(gè)部分:第一部分是案情介紹及爭(zhēng)議焦點(diǎn)。通過(guò)對(duì)王孝忠訴中高公司專(zhuān)利侵權(quán)這一真實(shí)案例的描述,引出本文所要研究的先用權(quán)制度;在此基礎(chǔ)上通過(guò)對(duì)案件爭(zhēng)議焦點(diǎn)——如何合理界定先用權(quán)的“原有范圍”的確立,以及一審和二審法院判決的評(píng)析,來(lái)說(shuō)明我國(guó)先用權(quán)制度存在的問(wèn)題。第二部分為先用權(quán)制度的理論概述。本部分以先用權(quán)的概念、法理基礎(chǔ)為依托闡述了先用權(quán)制度的立法價(jià)值,即合理平衡先用權(quán)人和專(zhuān)利權(quán)人的權(quán)益,以及鼓勵(lì)科技創(chuàng)新和專(zhuān)利技術(shù)的實(shí)際應(yīng)用;同時(shí),通過(guò)對(duì)當(dāng)前理論界有關(guān)先用權(quán)性質(zhì)的獨(dú)立權(quán)利理論和抗辯權(quán)理論的對(duì)比分析,總結(jié)出兩大主流觀點(diǎn)各自的偏頗及合理之處。第三部分對(duì)我國(guó)先用權(quán)制度中存在的問(wèn)題進(jìn)行分析論述。本部分主要從我國(guó)先用權(quán)制度中的技術(shù)范圍、技術(shù)來(lái)源、必要準(zhǔn)備和原有范圍等方面進(jìn)行分析。通過(guò)各學(xué)者的觀點(diǎn)及司法實(shí)踐引出我國(guó)立法中存在的不足之處,主要包括未清晰地規(guī)定是否包含“等同”的技術(shù)特征,沒(méi)有明確技術(shù)來(lái)源的范圍,必要準(zhǔn)備的選擇性要件不合理和“物質(zhì)要件”要求過(guò)高,原有范圍過(guò)窄等。同時(shí),針對(duì)前述的不足筆者表明了所認(rèn)為應(yīng)當(dāng)改善的方向。第四部分對(duì)域外先用權(quán)制度進(jìn)行了對(duì)比分析。本部分通過(guò)對(duì)日本、美國(guó)、德國(guó)先用權(quán)的概念、立法規(guī)定、權(quán)利范圍、成立條件的歸納總結(jié),對(duì)比得出域外先用權(quán)制度的立法相比我國(guó)的合理之處,從而為彌補(bǔ)我國(guó)立法不足提供有益參考。第五部分系我國(guó)先用權(quán)制度立法完善的構(gòu)想。本部分在前述各部分的基礎(chǔ)上,通過(guò)對(duì)我國(guó)先用權(quán)立法的問(wèn)題概述和弊端分析以及國(guó)外立法合理性的闡釋,得出我國(guó)先用權(quán)制度的修正目標(biāo),并以此為指引提出對(duì)現(xiàn)有法律制度的一些修改建議。本文主要借助典型案例對(duì)先用權(quán)制度中存在的問(wèn)題進(jìn)行概括并加以分析、討論;同時(shí)借助文獻(xiàn)分析法、比較分析法、實(shí)證分析法等,力爭(zhēng)透徹地闡明我國(guó)先用權(quán)制度當(dāng)中存在的問(wèn)題,并在此基礎(chǔ)上提出合理的意見(jiàn)和建議。
[Abstract]:Under the background that a new round of scientific and technological revolution and industrial revolution is gestating all over the world, scientific and technological innovation has gradually become the main driving force of national development. As an exclusive right, intellectual property will become a powerful weapon to protect the achievements of scientific and technological innovation. As the core of intellectual property rights legislation, the patent system, because of its stronger monopoly, more prominent innovation and more direct economy, will be the most powerful protection tool of scientific and technological achievements. However, because of the monopoly and commercial nature of patent right, it is easy to cause the right holders to overuse their rights in order to pursue economic benefits, thus limiting the fair market competition of their competitors in the same trade. This is contrary to the original legislative intent of the patent system. Therefore, the first use right system in patent law can resist the overuse of patent rights, protect the legitimate interests of market competitors, and balance the rights of patentee and prior right holder. There are five parts in this paper: the first part is the introduction of the case and the focus of the dispute. Through the description of the true case of patent infringement of Wang Xiaozhong v. Zhonggao Company, this paper introduces the system of preemptive right to be studied in this paper. On the basis of this, this paper explains the problems existing in the system of the preemptive right in our country through the establishment of the "original scope" of the case dispute, how to reasonably define the "original scope" of the preemptive right, and the judgment of the court of first instance and the second instance. The second part is the theoretical overview of the system of first-use right. Based on the concept of prior use right and the legal basis, this part expounds the legislative value of the first use right system, that is, to reasonably balance the rights and interests of the prior right holder and the patentee, and to encourage the scientific and technological innovation and the practical application of the patent technology. At the same time, through the comparative analysis of the independent right theory and the defense right theory about the nature of the preemptive right in the current theoretical circle, the author summarizes the bias and rationality of the two main views. The third part analyzes the problems existing in the system of preemptive right in our country. This part mainly analyzes the technical scope, technical source, necessary preparation and original scope of the system. Through the viewpoints of various scholars and judicial practice, this paper draws the conclusion that there are shortcomings in our country's legislation, including not clearly stipulating whether or not to include "equivalent" technical characteristics, and not clearly defining the scope of technology sources. The optional elements of necessary preparation are unreasonable and the material elements are too high and the original scope is too narrow. At the same time, in view of the above deficiencies, the author shows the direction that should be improved. The fourth part makes a comparative analysis on the system of extraterritorial preemptive right. This part summarizes the concepts, legislative provisions, scope of rights and conditions of establishment of Japan, the United States and Germany, and draws the conclusion that the legislation of extraterritorial first-use right is more reasonable than that of our country. In order to make up for the lack of legislation in China to provide a useful reference. The fifth part is the conception of legislation perfection of the system of first-use right in our country. On the basis of the foregoing parts, this part, through the analysis of the problems and disadvantages of the first use right legislation in our country and the explanation of the rationality of the foreign legislation, obtains the revision target of the first use right system in our country. And as a guide to put forward some amendments to the existing legal system. This paper summarizes and analyzes the problems existing in the system of preemptive right with the help of typical cases. At the same time, with the help of literature analysis, comparative analysis, empirical analysis and so on, the author tries to clarify the existing problems in the system of preemptive right in China, and puts forward some reasonable opinions and suggestions on this basis.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：西南政法大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2015
【分類(lèi)號(hào)】：D923.42

【相似文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 陳化琴;黃歡;;再論商標(biāo)先用權(quán)[J];法制與經(jīng)濟(jì)(上旬刊);2011年06期

2 湯亮;;淺析我國(guó)商標(biāo)先用權(quán)制度[J];湖北警官學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2012年03期

3 周園;專(zhuān)利先用權(quán)中若干法律問(wèn)題的探討[J];河南司法警官職業(yè)學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2003年03期

4 張學(xué)軍;;先用權(quán)抗辯在專(zhuān)利審判中的適用[J];人民司法;2008年22期

5 陳博;;先用權(quán)適用研究——兼評(píng)逄某訴哈爾濱某藥業(yè)公司侵犯專(zhuān)利權(quán)案[J];廣西民族師范學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2010年02期

6 王凌紅;;先用權(quán)制度探析[J];電子知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán);2010年11期

7 徐紅妮;練天成;;從衡平原則反思先用權(quán)的制度價(jià)值[J];人民司法;2010年11期

8 肖帥;;專(zhuān)利先用權(quán)的法律問(wèn)題探析[J];法制與社會(huì);2011年03期

9 鄧聲菊;何黎清;;先用權(quán)在中藥領(lǐng)域的適用探討[J];中國(guó)新藥雜志;2011年04期

10 宋文茹;;論“原有范圍”在先用權(quán)抗辯中的運(yùn)用[J];咸寧學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2011年02期

相關(guān)會(huì)議論文 前8條

1 宋俊寅;;淺談先用權(quán)在實(shí)踐中的運(yùn)用[A];2013年中華全國(guó)專(zhuān)利代理人協(xié)會(huì)年會(huì)暨第四屆知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)論壇論文匯編第四部分[C];2013年

2 葉勇;;先用權(quán)若干問(wèn)題探討[A];全面實(shí)施國(guó)家知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)戰(zhàn)略，，加快提升專(zhuān)利代理服務(wù)能力－2011年中華全國(guó)專(zhuān)利代理人協(xié)會(huì)年會(huì)暨第二屆知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)論壇論文集[C];2011年

3 葉勇;;先用權(quán)若干問(wèn)題研究[A];中華全國(guó)專(zhuān)利代理人協(xié)會(huì)成立20周年慶祝大會(huì)暨學(xué)術(shù)論壇會(huì)議論文集[C];2008年

4 張黎明;;我國(guó)專(zhuān)利先用權(quán)問(wèn)題初探[A];加強(qiáng)專(zhuān)利代理行業(yè)建設(shè)、有效服務(wù)國(guó)家發(fā)展大局——2013年中華全國(guó)專(zhuān)利代理人協(xié)會(huì)年會(huì)暨第四屆知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)論壇論文選編[C];2013年

5 張黎明;;我國(guó)專(zhuān)利先用權(quán)問(wèn)題初探[A];2013年中華全國(guó)專(zhuān)利代理人協(xié)會(huì)年會(huì)暨第四屆知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)論壇論文匯編第四部分[C];2013年

6 周昕明;;《專(zhuān)利法》中先用權(quán)的適用應(yīng)重視的問(wèn)題[A];2009中華全國(guó)律師協(xié)會(huì)知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)專(zhuān)業(yè)委員會(huì)年會(huì)暨中國(guó)律師知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)高層論壇論文集（上）[C];2009年

7 楊紅軍;李慧;;論商標(biāo)先用權(quán)——對(duì)完善我國(guó)商標(biāo)法律制度的意義[A];中國(guó)知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)發(fā)展戰(zhàn)略論壇論文集[C];2005年

8 謝幸初;閻潔;楊凱鵬;;國(guó)內(nèi)企業(yè)和涉外專(zhuān)利代理人不可不知的發(fā)明人先申請(qǐng)制[A];2013年中華全國(guó)專(zhuān)利代理人協(xié)會(huì)年會(huì)暨第四屆知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)論壇論文匯編第三部分[C];2013年

相關(guān)重要報(bào)紙文章 前7條

1 朱佳丹;專(zhuān)利先用權(quán)在司法實(shí)踐中的新問(wèn)題[N];江蘇法制報(bào);2007年

2 湖北省漢川市人民法院 肖樂(lè)新;先用權(quán)的“原有范圍”沒(méi)有地域限制[N];人民法院報(bào);2011年

3 孫海龍 張旭;先用權(quán)在專(zhuān)利侵權(quán)訴訟中的適用[N];中國(guó)知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)報(bào);2004年

4 榮錦余;專(zhuān)利侵權(quán)案先用權(quán)原則的適用[N];人民法院報(bào);2004年

5 梁冰 黃翔寧;專(zhuān)利權(quán)相對(duì)人“先用權(quán)”之保護(hù)[N];江蘇法制報(bào);2006年

6 姚兵兵;配方類(lèi)發(fā)明專(zhuān)利先用權(quán)的確定和技術(shù)特征對(duì)比[N];中國(guó)知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)報(bào);2006年

7 羅焱;“專(zhuān)利保衛(wèi)戰(zhàn)”現(xiàn)在進(jìn)行時(shí)[N];中國(guó)經(jīng)營(yíng)報(bào);2005年

相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前10條

1 肖飛;專(zhuān)利制度中的先用權(quán)研究[D];西南政法大學(xué);2008年

2 代航;專(zhuān)利侵權(quán)訴訟中先用權(quán)抗辯研究[D];西南政法大學(xué);2009年

3 潘偉生;專(zhuān)利先用權(quán)制度研究[D];廈門(mén)大學(xué);2009年

4 吳振江;專(zhuān)利侵權(quán)訴訟中的先用權(quán)抗辯研究[D];清華大學(xué);2005年

5 姚遠(yuǎn);我國(guó)專(zhuān)利先用權(quán)法律問(wèn)題研究[D];四川大學(xué);2006年

6 尚世浩;專(zhuān)利制度中先用權(quán)的研究[D];華東政法大學(xué);2007年

7 謝益彬;專(zhuān)利先用權(quán)制度研究[D];華東政法大學(xué);2013年

8 劉輝;專(zhuān)利制度中的先用權(quán)研究[D];西南政法大學(xué);2014年

9 李光凱;專(zhuān)利法中先用權(quán)制度研究[D];西南政法大學(xué);2015年

10 張黎明;專(zhuān)利法上先用權(quán)的比較研究[D];華東政法大學(xué);2012年

本文編號(hào)：2385618