【摘要】：隨著2008年第三次《專(zhuān)利法》的修改,現(xiàn)有技術(shù)抗辯被正式引入我國(guó),為被控侵權(quán)人主張其實(shí)施的技術(shù)屬于現(xiàn)有技術(shù)而免于承擔(dān)侵權(quán)責(zé)任提供了法律依據(jù)。然而,這次修改只對(duì)現(xiàn)有技術(shù)抗辯進(jìn)行了初步的規(guī)定,對(duì)于現(xiàn)有技術(shù)的范圍、現(xiàn)有技術(shù)抗辯的適用范圍和技術(shù)對(duì)比規(guī)則仍需進(jìn)一步明確。第三人享有專(zhuān)利權(quán)的非自由公知技術(shù)滿(mǎn)足現(xiàn)有技術(shù)的條件,可以作為現(xiàn)有技術(shù)抗辯的依據(jù)。此外,在抗辯時(shí),現(xiàn)有技術(shù)應(yīng)當(dāng)限定為一項(xiàng)單獨(dú)的、已有的技術(shù)。現(xiàn)有技術(shù)抗辯不僅適用于等同侵權(quán),還適用于相同侵權(quán)的情形。對(duì)于已經(jīng)公開(kāi)的抵觸申請(qǐng),公眾能夠獲知并實(shí)施其中所記載的技術(shù),因此,它可以類(lèi)推適用現(xiàn)有技術(shù)抗辯�，F(xiàn)有技術(shù)抗辯是一種侵權(quán)例外抗辯,其適用的前提是侵權(quán)成立。因此,在技術(shù)對(duì)比時(shí),應(yīng)當(dāng)先將被控侵權(quán)技術(shù)與涉案專(zhuān)利技術(shù)進(jìn)行對(duì)比,構(gòu)成侵權(quán)的情況下,再將被控侵權(quán)技術(shù)與現(xiàn)有技術(shù)進(jìn)行對(duì)比。由于法院在判定專(zhuān)利侵權(quán)時(shí)采用的是"相同或等同"的標(biāo)準(zhǔn),它能夠適當(dāng)擴(kuò)大專(zhuān)利權(quán)的保護(hù)范圍。為了同等程度地?cái)U(kuò)大現(xiàn)有技術(shù)抗辯的范圍,實(shí)現(xiàn)專(zhuān)利權(quán)與公眾使用現(xiàn)有技術(shù)的權(quán)利之間的平衡,采用"相同或等同"的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)判斷現(xiàn)有技術(shù)抗辯是否成立更合理。
[Abstract]:With the revision of the third Patent Law in 2008, the existing technology defense was formally introduced into China, which provides a legal basis for the alleged infringer to claim that the technology implemented belongs to the existing technology and is exempt from tort liability. However, this revision only makes a preliminary stipulation on the defense of the existing technology, and the scope of application and the rules of contrast of the existing technology for the scope of the existing technology still need to be further clarified. The non-free public-known technology of which the third party has the patent right satisfies the condition of the existing technology and can be used as the basis of the defense of the existing technology. In addition, in the event of a defence, the existing art shall be limited to a separate, existing technology. The existing technology defense applies not only to the equivalent infringement, but also to the same infringement situation. For an application that has been made public, the public can be informed and implemented of the technology described therein, so that it can be applied by analogy to existing technology defences. The existing technology defense is one kind of tort exception defense, its application premise is the infringement establishment. Therefore, when the technology is compared, the technology of the alleged infringement should be compared with the technology involved in the patent first, and then, in the case of the infringement, the technology of the alleged infringement should be compared with the existing technology. Because the court adopts the "same or equivalent" standard in determining patent infringement, it can extend the scope of patent protection appropriately. In order to expand the scope of the existing technology defense to the same extent and achieve the balance between the patent right and the public's right to use the existing technology, the criterion of "same or equal" is adopted to judge whether the existing technology defense is more reasonable.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：浙江大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2017
【分類(lèi)號(hào)】：D923.42

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 田俊峰;;現(xiàn)有技術(shù)抗辯在專(zhuān)利侵權(quán)糾紛中的適用[J];法制博覽;2016年30期

2 王曉琳;;抵觸申請(qǐng)作為專(zhuān)利侵權(quán)抗辯事由的思考[J];中國(guó)發(fā)明與專(zhuān)利;2015年02期

3 代江龍;;論現(xiàn)有技術(shù)抗辯程序機(jī)制的規(guī)范化[J];長(zhǎng)江大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(社科版);2014年10期

4 聶稻波;汪泉;王俊峰;;論現(xiàn)有技術(shù)抗辯應(yīng)當(dāng)與創(chuàng)造性高度以及等同原則的范圍相適應(yīng)[J];法制博覽(中旬刊);2014年02期

5 曹新明;;現(xiàn)有技術(shù)抗辯研究[J];法商研究;2010年06期

6 張鵬;;現(xiàn)有技術(shù)抗辯制度本質(zhì)論[J];科技與法律;2010年01期

7 陳敬;江濱;史錄文;;從藥品專(zhuān)利侵權(quán)訴訟看現(xiàn)有技術(shù)抗辯原則的運(yùn)用[J];中國(guó)新藥雜志;2009年13期

8 張鵬;崔國(guó)振;;現(xiàn)有技術(shù)抗辯的對(duì)比方式和對(duì)比標(biāo)準(zhǔn)探析[J];知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán);2009年01期

9 張曉都;;再談現(xiàn)有技術(shù)抗辯的認(rèn)定標(biāo)準(zhǔn)與s屑際蹩貢韁械牡執(zhí)ド昵隱J];中國(guó)專(zhuān)利與商標(biāo);2008年01期

10 張榮彥;;也談現(xiàn)有技術(shù)抗辯的認(rèn)定[J];中國(guó)專(zhuān)利與商標(biāo);2007年04期

，

本文編號(hào)：2390756