發(fā)布時(shí)間：2018-09-07 15:47

【摘要】：隨著知識(shí)經(jīng)濟(jì)發(fā)展的日趨深入,近年來我國的知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)糾紛出現(xiàn)了井噴式增長。對(duì)法院而言大量的知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)訴訟是難以消化的沉重負(fù)擔(dān),對(duì)當(dāng)事人而言知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)訴訟也是花費(fèi)巨大耗時(shí)漫長的過程,在此情形下,有必要針對(duì)知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)法律糾紛的自身特點(diǎn)來尋求訴訟外替代性爭(zhēng)端解決機(jī)制。這既是對(duì)知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)相關(guān)爭(zhēng)議解決難題的必然回應(yīng),也是對(duì)構(gòu)建多元化民商事法律糾紛解決機(jī)制的有益嘗試。大力發(fā)展知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)仲裁對(duì)我國構(gòu)建多元化的知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)爭(zhēng)議解決機(jī)制,緩解大量頻發(fā)的知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)案件對(duì)于市場(chǎng)正常秩序所帶來的巨大負(fù)荷,促進(jìn)我國知識(shí)經(jīng)濟(jì)健康有序發(fā)展,建設(shè)知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)強(qiáng)國都將具有重大意義。理論上,從功利性角度而言,仲裁以其專業(yè)性、保密性、快捷性、靈活性等特點(diǎn)與知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)爭(zhēng)議解決的特殊需求深度契合,從而在知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)爭(zhēng)議解決領(lǐng)域存在巨大潛力,應(yīng)當(dāng)發(fā)揮節(jié)約社會(huì)成本,促進(jìn)社會(huì)交易的積極作用;從私權(quán)神圣角度而言,私權(quán)作為知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)的本質(zhì)屬性,當(dāng)事人對(duì)于知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)的處分應(yīng)當(dāng)充分尊重其意思自治,而在此處意思自治原則理應(yīng)包含選擇爭(zhēng)議解決方式的可能與自由,從而彰顯私權(quán)神圣的法律追求,進(jìn)而體現(xiàn)法律保障公民自由之價(jià)值。實(shí)踐中,我國目前知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)仲裁的現(xiàn)實(shí)發(fā)展?fàn)顩r不容樂觀,一是專門解決此類爭(zhēng)議的仲裁機(jī)構(gòu)數(shù)量較少并且其獨(dú)立性與專業(yè)性也難以得到保證;二是整個(gè)仲裁行業(yè)的知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)爭(zhēng)議受案量少;三是知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)仲裁案件的受案類型單一,主要集中在合同爭(zhēng)議,而侵權(quán)爭(zhēng)議與有效性爭(zhēng)議很少涉及或基本沒有涉及。因?yàn)橹R(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)法中公共政策背影濃重限制了可仲裁案件類型,仲裁臨時(shí)措施規(guī)定粗拙影響了權(quán)利人對(duì)不法侵害的迅速制止,仲裁訴訟化傾向?qū)е聽?zhēng)議解決速率降低等原因,致使我國知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)仲裁的發(fā)展卻并不理想,從而難以實(shí)現(xiàn)制度設(shè)計(jì)本應(yīng)體現(xiàn)的功利價(jià)值與社會(huì)價(jià)值。因此,有必要通過系列舉措打破理論設(shè)想與實(shí)踐操作之間的隔膜,破除我國目前知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)仲裁所面臨的困境,推動(dòng)知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)仲裁的深入發(fā)展。例如,在嚴(yán)格配套制度下適當(dāng)擴(kuò)大知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)仲裁受案范圍,明確規(guī)定合同及侵權(quán)爭(zhēng)議的可仲裁性,嘗試允許有效性爭(zhēng)議可提請(qǐng)仲裁解決,但明確規(guī)定裁決效力的閉鎖性,當(dāng)事人不得在本案以外援引相關(guān)裁決作為效力認(rèn)定的證據(jù);進(jìn)一步完善臨時(shí)措施相關(guān)規(guī)定,允許仲裁庭發(fā)布不具有絕對(duì)強(qiáng)制性效力的臨時(shí)措施決定,以不利裁決之推定促使當(dāng)事人主動(dòng)履行相關(guān)決定;幫助糾紛當(dāng)事人通過選擇適用快速仲裁程序、制定個(gè)案化的仲裁規(guī)則等方式加快仲裁程序進(jìn)程。
[Abstract]:With the development of knowledge economy, the intellectual property disputes in our country have increased by blowout in recent years. A large number of intellectual property litigation is an indigestible heavy burden to the court, and to the parties intellectual property litigation is also a time-consuming and lengthy process, in which case, It is necessary to seek alternative dispute settlement mechanism outside litigation according to the characteristics of intellectual property disputes. This is not only an inevitable response to the problem of intellectual property dispute resolution, but also a beneficial attempt to build a diversified civil and commercial legal dispute resolution mechanism. Vigorously develop intellectual property arbitration to build a diversified mechanism of intellectual property dispute settlement in China, alleviate the enormous burden brought by a large number of frequent intellectual property cases to the normal order of the market, and promote the healthy and orderly development of the knowledge economy in China. It will be of great significance to build a powerful intellectual property power. Theoretically, from a utilitarian point of view, arbitration has the characteristics of professionalism, confidentiality, quickness, flexibility and so on, which are closely related to the special needs of intellectual property dispute resolution, and thus have great potential in the field of intellectual property dispute settlement. We should play a positive role in saving social costs and promoting social transactions. From the perspective of private rights, private rights as the essential attribute of intellectual property rights, the parties should fully respect their autonomy in the disposition of intellectual property rights. Here, the principle of autonomy of meaning should include the possibility and freedom of choosing the way of dispute resolution, thus showing the sacred legal pursuit of private rights, and thus reflecting the value of legal protection of civil liberties. In practice, the current situation of intellectual property arbitration in China is not optimistic. First, the number of arbitration institutions specialized in resolving such disputes is relatively small, and its independence and professionalism are difficult to guarantee; The second is the small number of intellectual property disputes in the whole arbitration industry; the third is the single type of cases in intellectual property arbitration cases, mainly focused on contract disputes, while the infringement dispute and validity dispute are rarely or basically not involved. Because the public policy in the intellectual property law strongly restricts the type of arbitrable cases, the rough provisions of the interim measures of arbitration have affected the obligee to stop the illegal infringement quickly, and the tendency of arbitration litigation has led to the reduction of the rate of dispute settlement, and so on. As a result, the development of intellectual property arbitration in China is not ideal, so it is difficult to realize the utilitarian value and social value that should be embodied in the system design. Therefore, it is necessary to break the gap between theoretical assumption and practical operation through a series of measures, to break down the predicament of intellectual property arbitration in our country at present, and to promote the further development of intellectual property arbitration. For example, under a strict matching system, the scope of intellectual property arbitration cases should be appropriately expanded, the arbitrability of contracts and infringement disputes should be clearly defined, and an attempt should be made to allow valid disputes to be submitted to arbitration for settlement, but to specify the blocking nature of the validity of the award. The parties may not invoke the relevant award as evidence of validity outside the case; further improve the relevant provisions on interim measures and allow the arbitral tribunal to issue decisions on interim measures that do not have absolute mandatory effect, The presumption of adverse award urges the parties to take the initiative to perform the relevant decisions, and helps the parties to the dispute to speed up the process of arbitration by choosing to apply the expedited arbitration procedure and formulating the arbitration rules on a case-by-case basis.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：北京郵電大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2017
【分類號(hào)】：D923.4;D925.7

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 張圣翠;;論我國仲裁保全措施制度的重構(gòu)[J];上海財(cái)經(jīng)大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào);2016年02期

2 袁發(fā)強(qiáng);;自貿(mào)區(qū)仲裁規(guī)則的冷靜思考[J];上海財(cái)經(jīng)大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào);2015年02期

3 李晶;;國際商事仲裁中臨時(shí)措施在中國的新發(fā)展——以民訴法修改和仲裁規(guī)則修訂為視角[J];西北大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(哲學(xué)社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2014年06期

4 張林;劉永光;;日本知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)糾紛的仲裁解決機(jī)制——兼論我國知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)糾紛仲裁的困境與出路[J];日本研究;2014年03期

5 房沫;;仲裁庭組成前的臨時(shí)救濟(jì)措施——以新加坡國際仲裁中心仲裁規(guī)則為視角[J];社會(huì)科學(xué)家;2013年06期

6 顧艷鈺;;知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)侵權(quán)糾紛可仲裁性問題探析[J];成都行政學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2012年04期

7 宋秋嬋;;論商事仲裁臨時(shí)措施裁定權(quán)歸屬中法院與仲裁庭的“伙伴關(guān)系”[J];仲裁研究;2010年04期

8 張衛(wèi)彬;;快車道仲裁規(guī)則的比較及借鑒[J];政法論叢;2010年06期

9 嚴(yán)紅;張潔;;淺析我國國際商事仲裁臨時(shí)措施的決定權(quán)分配[J];特區(qū)經(jīng)濟(jì);2010年10期

10 王顯榮;;司法權(quán)的中國特色限制——以我國商事仲裁中臨時(shí)措施決定權(quán)與執(zhí)行權(quán)的歸屬為視角[J];仲裁研究;2008年04期

相關(guān)博士學(xué)位論文 前2條

1 張虎;外國仲裁裁決在我國的承認(rèn)與執(zhí)行研究[D];大連海事大學(xué);2014年

2 倪靜;知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)糾紛訴訟外解決機(jī)制研究[D];廈門大學(xué);2008年

相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前2條

1 張文鈞;論知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)爭(zhēng)議的可仲裁性[D];華東政法大學(xué);2014年

2 張艷琳;知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)爭(zhēng)議的可仲裁性研究[D];中國政法大學(xué);2009年

，

本文編號(hào)：2228697