本文選題：專利侵權(quán)　切入點：等同原則　出處：《西南政法大學(xué)》2013年碩士論文　論文類型：學(xué)位論文

【摘要】：當(dāng)今社會，知識產(chǎn)權(quán)越來越被人們重視，知識產(chǎn)權(quán)戰(zhàn)略正日益成為衡量一個國家綜合競爭力的重要因素。專利權(quán)作為知識產(chǎn)權(quán)的重要組成部分，也是國家知識產(chǎn)權(quán)戰(zhàn)略的重要一環(huán)。隨著我國專利技術(shù)的飛速發(fā)展，大量的專利技術(shù)在給專利權(quán)人帶來經(jīng)濟(jì)效益的同時，也為社會公眾提供了高端的科學(xué)技術(shù)，極大地促進(jìn)了社會的發(fā)展。然而，另一方面，專利技術(shù)所產(chǎn)生的巨大經(jīng)濟(jì)利益使很多非專利權(quán)人冒著違反法律的風(fēng)險作出了侵權(quán)行為。目前，專利侵權(quán)已成為知識產(chǎn)權(quán)訴訟中的一大問題，而專利侵權(quán)判定則是專利訴訟中各方當(dāng)事人都十分重視的問題之一。等同原則是專利侵權(quán)判定的一項重要原則�？萍嫉娘w速發(fā)展使得侵權(quán)人在侵權(quán)的策略上作出了重大改變，即由原來簡單的相同侵權(quán)轉(zhuǎn)變?yōu)槟壳白畛Ｒ姷牡韧謾?quán)，而等同原則就是判定一個行為是否構(gòu)成對專利的等同侵權(quán)的最重要原則之一。藥品領(lǐng)域的專利侵權(quán)是專利界尤其復(fù)雜卻又十分重要的一部分，，藥品是關(guān)系人類身體健康與生命安全的產(chǎn)品，因此對藥品專利侵權(quán)的判定進(jìn)行探索與研究是對專利權(quán)的重視，也是對生命的敬重。由于藥品自身的復(fù)雜性，對藥品專利的侵權(quán)也相對較難判定。 本文選取澳諾（中國）制藥與湖北午時藥業(yè)公司的專利侵權(quán)一案為例，共分為五部分，討論了等同原則在藥品專利侵權(quán)判定中的應(yīng)用這一話題。 第一部分介紹了本文所討論案例的基本情況，包括案情簡介、審判結(jié)果和爭議焦點。 第二部分介紹了等同原則在專利侵權(quán)判定中適用時要用到的基礎(chǔ)理論。本部分分為兩小部分，包括權(quán)利要求書中的權(quán)利要求解釋和權(quán)利要求解釋與專利侵權(quán)判定的關(guān)系。前者除了介紹權(quán)利要求解釋的基本含義之外，還討論了組合物權(quán)利要求中的封閉式權(quán)利要求與開放式權(quán)利要求。 第三部分是等同原則的應(yīng)用和等同技術(shù)特征的判定。本部分總結(jié)了等同原則的基本理論，并從兩個方面主要討論了等同技術(shù)特征的判定規(guī)則。判定等同技術(shù)特征要遵循兩個規(guī)則，即“全部技術(shù)特征”規(guī)則和“手段-功能-效果”三段式規(guī)則。在“全部技術(shù)特征”規(guī)則部分，通過引用美國適用這個規(guī)則的發(fā)展歷程及適用方式，探討了我國專利界應(yīng)用該規(guī)則判定等同技術(shù)特征方面的問題。 第四部分在第三部分的基礎(chǔ)上，探討了藥品專利領(lǐng)域在判定等同技術(shù)特征時應(yīng)該注意的特殊問題。結(jié)合本文引用案例，主要從組合物復(fù)方制劑的角度討論了藥品組分的比對、藥品組分用量的比對以及其他因素對判定等同技術(shù)特征的影響。其他因素部分主要從藥物制劑形態(tài)對判定等同技術(shù)特征的影響展開。 第五部分從側(cè)面介紹了等同原則的應(yīng)用，即禁止反悔原則對等同原則的限制。主要從三個方面討論：何種修改、陳述會導(dǎo)致適用禁止反悔原則的適用，適用禁止反悔原則對等同原則的適用產(chǎn)生何種影響，以及禁止反悔原則在我國的適用方式。
[Abstract]:In today's society, more and more people pay attention to intellectual property rights, intellectual property strategy is becoming an important factor to measure the competitiveness of a country's patent right. As an important part of intellectual property, but also the national intellectual property strategy an important part. With the rapid development of China's patent technology, a large number of patents in the patent right bring economic benefits to the people at the same time, also provides the high science and technology to the public, has greatly promoted the development of the society. However, on the other hand, the huge economic interests of patent technology produces so many non patent risk in violation of the law made the infringement. At present, the patent infringement has become a big problem in intellectual property litigation, and patent infringement is one of the parties in patent litigation parties attach great importance to the problem. The doctrine of equivalents is a patent infringement An important principle. The rapid development of science and technology makes the infringer infringement strategy has made major changes, the same change from the original simple tort is the most common equivalent infringement, while the same principle is to determine whether an act constitutes patent as the most important one of the principles of tort. In the field of drug patent infringement of patent circles in particular part of a complex but very important, drugs are the relationship between human health and life safety of the product, so the exploration and research of the patent right attention to determine the drug patent infringement, but also the respect for life. Because of the complexity of the drug itself, the pharmaceutical patent infringement is relatively difficult to determine.
This paper selects Aonuo Pharmaceutical (China) and Hubei Wushi pharmaceuticals patent infringement case as an example, is divided into five parts, discusses the application of topic equivalent principle in drug patent infringement.
The first part introduces the basic situation of the case discussed in this article, including the brief introduction, the result of the trial and the focus of the dispute.
The second part introduces the basic theory of equivalent principle in patent infringement should be applied when used. This part is divided into two parts, including the claims of the claims in the relationship between the interpretation and interpretation of claims and patent infringement. In addition to the basic meaning of the former claim interpretation, closed claim composition in the claims and opening claim was also discussed.
The third part is to determine the application and the equivalent principle of equal technical features. This part summarizes the basic theory of equivalent principle, and from two aspects mainly discussed the decision rules of equal technical features. Technical characteristics of equivalents should follow two rules, namely "all elements rule" and the "means function effect" the three section type rules. In "all technical features" part of the rules, by referencing the development process of the United States is the rule and mode of application, discusses our country patent community application of the rule to determine the technical characteristics of equivalent problems.
In the fourth part, on the basis of the third part, discusses the special problems should be paid attention to pharmaceutical patent field equal technical features in the determination. This article combines the case, mainly from the composition of compound preparation were discussed on the drug composition, ratio of drug components dosage and other factors to determine the effect of equal technical features. Some factors mainly focuses on the effects of drug preparation form for technical feature of equivalents.
The fifth part introduces the application of the principle from the side, namely the principle of estoppel to limit the doctrine of equivalent. Mainly from three aspects to discuss: what changes, statements will lead to apply the principle of estoppel, estoppel principles apply impact on the application of the doctrine of equivalents, and the principle of Estoppel in application in China.

【學(xué)位授予單位】：西南政法大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2013
【分類號】：D923.42

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前2條

1 蔣洪義;;葡萄糖酸鈣鋅口服溶液專利侵權(quán)再審案評析[J];中國發(fā)明與專利;2011年10期

2 劉惠明;試論確定專利保護(hù)范圍的等同原則[J];外國法譯評;1999年04期

相關(guān)博士學(xué)位論文 前1條

1 鄭永鋒;藥品專利侵權(quán)判定規(guī)則研究[D];中國政法大學(xué);2008年

本文編號：1587675