本文選題：相同侵權(quán)　切入點(diǎn)：現(xiàn)有技術(shù)抗辯　出處：《煙臺(tái)大學(xué)》2014年碩士論文　論文類型：學(xué)位論文

【摘要】：法院在審里專利侵權(quán)訴訟過(guò)程中，一般是先根據(jù)原告提供的專利權(quán)利要求書(shū)及相關(guān)專利文件確定專利權(quán)保護(hù)范圍，再對(duì)被控技術(shù)方案進(jìn)行分析，判斷是否落入了專利權(quán)保護(hù)范圍以確定原告侵權(quán)主張是否成立。而被告的應(yīng)對(duì)策略一般是證明自己使用的技術(shù)在專利權(quán)保護(hù)范圍之外或者通過(guò)向國(guó)家知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)局提出無(wú)效宣告審查申請(qǐng)，主張?jiān)鎸＠麢?quán)無(wú)效，以達(dá)到不承擔(dān)專利侵權(quán)責(zé)任的目的。然而，由于我國(guó)實(shí)行的是專利行政確權(quán)與侵權(quán)司法審查分離制度，即使被告主張自己使用的是現(xiàn)有技術(shù)，也往往需要先向?qū)＠麖?fù)審委員會(huì)提出專利無(wú)效宣告申請(qǐng)，而陷入極為不利的訴累狀態(tài)。 2008年修訂的《專利法》正式以法律的形式確立我國(guó)現(xiàn)有技術(shù)抗辯制度，使得被告在面對(duì)專利侵權(quán)指控時(shí)，能直接以自己所使用的是現(xiàn)有技術(shù)為由進(jìn)行抗辯，法院也無(wú)需中止訴訟等待專利復(fù)審委員會(huì)無(wú)效宣告審查結(jié)果，即可作出獨(dú)立判決。實(shí)施現(xiàn)有技術(shù)抗辯制度能有效得提高訴訟效率，，減輕當(dāng)事人的訴累，同時(shí)還有利于遏制專利權(quán)人惡意訴訟。 現(xiàn)有技術(shù)抗辯制度在我國(guó)建立時(shí)間很短段，還有很多不完善的地方，目前學(xué)術(shù)界對(duì)于現(xiàn)有技術(shù)抗辯的適用范圍、對(duì)比順序、成立標(biāo)準(zhǔn)等還存在著較大的爭(zhēng)議。本文從現(xiàn)有技術(shù)制度的起源開(kāi)始介紹，對(duì)當(dāng)前司法實(shí)踐中爭(zhēng)議較多的問(wèn)題就行探討，重點(diǎn)對(duì)可以用抗辯的現(xiàn)有技術(shù)范圍、適用原則、現(xiàn)有技術(shù)抗辯成立標(biāo)準(zhǔn)的核心問(wèn)題進(jìn)行研究，希望對(duì)我國(guó)現(xiàn)有技術(shù)抗辯制度的發(fā)展與完善有些微參考價(jià)值。 本文主要通過(guò)五個(gè)章節(jié)來(lái)介紹我國(guó)現(xiàn)有技術(shù)抗辯制度。 第一部分主要介紹了現(xiàn)有技術(shù)抗辯制度的基本理論，包括現(xiàn)有技術(shù)抗辯的概念、起源、制度價(jià)值以及在我國(guó)的發(fā)展歷程。 第二部分主要從“時(shí)間限定”、“地域限定”和“是否為公眾所知”三個(gè)方面論述了可用以抗辯的現(xiàn)有技術(shù)范圍。同時(shí)著重闡述了現(xiàn)有技術(shù)能否延及簡(jiǎn)單組合問(wèn)題，提出了用于抗辯的現(xiàn)有技術(shù)既可以是單獨(dú)的一分現(xiàn)有技術(shù)，也可以是多份現(xiàn)有技術(shù)組合，但僅限于簡(jiǎn)單組合的觀點(diǎn)。 第三部分詳細(xì)闡述了在等同侵權(quán)和相同侵權(quán)條件下適用現(xiàn)有技術(shù)抗辯存在的問(wèn)題爭(zhēng)議，同時(shí)介紹了美國(guó)、日本和德國(guó)在相同侵權(quán)情況下適用現(xiàn)有技術(shù)抗辯的制度。對(duì)我國(guó)現(xiàn)有技術(shù)抗辯使用范圍提出建議。 第四部主要論述了現(xiàn)有技術(shù)抗辯中的認(rèn)定問(wèn)題，包括對(duì)比順序、認(rèn)定標(biāo)準(zhǔn)等。介紹了當(dāng)前關(guān)于現(xiàn)有技術(shù)抗辯成立標(biāo)準(zhǔn)的三種主要觀點(diǎn)：新穎性標(biāo)準(zhǔn)、創(chuàng)造性標(biāo)準(zhǔn)和相同和十分接近準(zhǔn)，并從法理基礎(chǔ)、現(xiàn)實(shí)依據(jù)和立法依據(jù)三個(gè)方面提出了我國(guó)對(duì)比標(biāo)準(zhǔn)的構(gòu)建。 第五部分主要介紹了現(xiàn)有技術(shù)抗辯和無(wú)效宣告程序的區(qū)別和各自特點(diǎn)，為被控侵權(quán)人選擇應(yīng)對(duì)策略提供參考。
[Abstract]:In the course of the trial of patent infringement proceedings, the court usually determines the scope of patent protection according to the patent claim and related patent documents provided by the plaintiff, and then analyzes the technical scheme of the accused. The defendant's strategy is to prove that the technology he uses is outside the scope of patent protection or by addressing the state intellectual property office. Making an application for examination of the declaration of invalidation, Claims that the plaintiff's patent right is invalid in order to achieve the purpose of not assuming liability for patent infringement. However, since the system of separation of patent administrative confirmation rights from judicial review of infringement is implemented in China, even if the defendant claims that he is using existing technology, It is also necessary to apply for invalidation of a patent to the Patent Review Board first, and fall into an extremely disadvantageous state of litigation. In 2008, the Patent Law was amended to formally establish the defense system of the existing technology in our country in the form of law, so that the defendant can directly defend the existing technology in the face of patent infringement charges. The court also does not need to suspend the lawsuit and wait for the patent review board to invalidate the examination result, it can make an independent judgment. The implementation of the existing technical defense system can effectively improve the efficiency of the litigation and alleviate the litigant's burden. At the same time, it is also conducive to curb the patentee malicious litigation. The existing technology defense system has been established in China for a short period of time, and there are still many imperfections. At present, the academic circles compare the scope of application of the existing technology defense with the order in which it is applied. From the origin of the existing technical system, this paper introduces the current judicial practice of more controversial issues, focusing on the scope of the existing technology can be used, the applicable principles, This paper studies the core problem of the standard of the establishment of the existing technology defense and hopes to provide some reference value for the development and perfection of the existing technology defense system in China. This article mainly through five chapters to introduce our country's existing technology defense system. The first part mainly introduces the basic theory of the existing technology defense system, including the concept, origin, system value and the development course of the existing technology defense system in our country. The second part mainly discusses the scope of the existing technology which can be used to defend from the three aspects of "time limit", "geographical limitation" and "whether it is known to the public". At the same time, it emphatically expounds whether the existing technology can be extended to simple combination. The point of view that the prior art used for defense can be either a separate prior art or a combination of several existing technologies is limited to a simple combination. The third part elaborates the dispute of applying the existing technology defense under the condition of equivalent infringement and the same tort condition, and introduces the United States at the same time. Japan and Germany apply the existing technology defense system under the same infringement situation. The 4th part mainly discusses the cognizance problem in the existing technology defense, including the contrast order, the cognizance standard and so on. It introduces three main viewpoints about the existing technology defense establishment standard: the novelty standard, and so on. The creative standard is the same and very close to the standard, and puts forward the construction of the contrastive standard of our country from three aspects: the legal basis, the realistic basis and the legislative basis. Part 5th mainly introduces the differences and characteristics of the existing technical defences and invalidation procedures, and provides a reference for the alleged infringers to choose coping strategies.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：煙臺(tái)大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2014
【分類號(hào)】：D923.42;D925.1

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前9條

1 楊志敏;關(guān)于“公知技術(shù)抗辯”若干問(wèn)題的研究——從中、德、日三國(guó)判例與學(xué)說(shuō)的對(duì)比角度[J];比較法研究;2003年02期

2 洪恩山;;我國(guó)專利法中的現(xiàn)有技術(shù)抗辯制度之探討[J];中國(guó)發(fā)明與專利;2010年03期

3 陳榮飛;;論現(xiàn)有技術(shù)抗辯在專利侵權(quán)訴訟中的適用[J];中國(guó)發(fā)明與專利;2012年01期

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

5 和育東;甫玉龍;;專利相同侵權(quán)下現(xiàn)有技術(shù)抗辯制度反思[J];法學(xué)雜志;2011年11期

6 翟文峰;張炳生;;現(xiàn)有技術(shù)抗辯的對(duì)比標(biāo)準(zhǔn)[J];中國(guó)礦業(yè)大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2010年03期

7 袁滔;;現(xiàn)有技術(shù)抗辯適用中的若干問(wèn)題[J];人民司法;2009年21期

8 王東勇;;現(xiàn)有技術(shù)抗辯的適用及賠償數(shù)額的確定[J];人民司法;2013年04期

9 溫旭;自由公知技術(shù)抗辯在專利訴訟中的應(yīng)用[J];知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán);1997年01期

相關(guān)博士學(xué)位論文 前1條

1 徐興祥;專利侵權(quán)判定研究[D];中國(guó)政法大學(xué);2011年

本文編號(hào)：1558559