本文選題：知識產(chǎn)權(quán)　切入點：證據(jù)規(guī)則　出處：《華南理工大學(xué)》2014年碩士論文　論文類型：學(xué)位論文

【摘要】：在知識產(chǎn)權(quán)侵權(quán)訴訟過程中，查明并準(zhǔn)確認(rèn)定侵權(quán)損害賠償數(shù)額，一直以來都是法院審判工作中面臨的難題。認(rèn)定侵權(quán)損害賠償數(shù)額的關(guān)鍵在于查明權(quán)利人因侵權(quán)行為造成的實際損失和侵權(quán)人侵權(quán)獲利的事實，而事實查明的關(guān)鍵最終又落在了證據(jù)的收集和認(rèn)定上。解決知識產(chǎn)權(quán)證據(jù)的收集和認(rèn)定問題（本文所研究的證據(jù)，主要指損害賠償數(shù)額證據(jù)），，有助于查明和準(zhǔn)確認(rèn)定侵權(quán)損害賠償數(shù)額。 有鑒于此，本文分析了知識產(chǎn)權(quán)損害賠償證據(jù)的特點，指出當(dāng)前司法實踐中收集和審查認(rèn)定損害賠償證據(jù)存在的困難，認(rèn)為通過靈活運用證據(jù)規(guī)則，能拓寬收集損害賠償證據(jù)的途徑和提高審查認(rèn)定證據(jù)的能力，有助于法院準(zhǔn)確認(rèn)定侵權(quán)損害賠償數(shù)額。本文比較借鑒了域外的立法和司法經(jīng)驗，將知識產(chǎn)權(quán)損害賠償證據(jù)規(guī)則分為證據(jù)收集規(guī)則和證據(jù)認(rèn)定規(guī)則進(jìn)行研究。知識產(chǎn)權(quán)損害賠償證據(jù)的收集規(guī)則包括證據(jù)保全和證據(jù)披露規(guī)則，它們共同提高了當(dāng)事人收集證據(jù)的能力，拓寬證據(jù)收集的途徑，有助于克服知識產(chǎn)權(quán)損害賠償證據(jù)長期存在的取證困難問題，讓更多關(guān)鍵證據(jù)進(jìn)入到案件審理的過程，為查明損害賠償事實提供必要的基礎(chǔ)。知識產(chǎn)權(quán)損害賠償證據(jù)的認(rèn)定規(guī)則包括舉證妨礙規(guī)則、優(yōu)勢證據(jù)標(biāo)準(zhǔn)和專家輔助人制度。其中，舉證妨礙規(guī)則對消極提供證據(jù)的持有人課以必要的法律責(zé)任和后果，確保運用證據(jù)保全和證據(jù)披露規(guī)則收集證據(jù)的效果，為法官應(yīng)對證據(jù)持有人消極舉證提供解決思路和方法；優(yōu)勢證據(jù)標(biāo)準(zhǔn)適當(dāng)降低權(quán)利人損失或侵權(quán)人獲利等證據(jù)的證明標(biāo)準(zhǔn)，強調(diào)法官依法靈活運用自由裁量認(rèn)定損害賠償數(shù)額，減少法定賠償?shù)臋C械適用；專家輔助人制度彌補我國司法鑒定制度的不足，提高司法鑒定結(jié)論的準(zhǔn)確性和可信度，為法官審查判斷損害賠償證據(jù)提供專業(yè)的參考意見。筆者認(rèn)為，司法在保護(hù)知識產(chǎn)權(quán)方面將逐漸起到主導(dǎo)作用，合理確定侵權(quán)損害賠償數(shù)額，才能有效遏止知識產(chǎn)權(quán)侵權(quán)行為，永葆知識產(chǎn)權(quán)權(quán)利人創(chuàng)新發(fā)展的動力。加強知識產(chǎn)權(quán)損害賠償證據(jù)規(guī)則的研究，靈活運用證據(jù)規(guī)則查明侵權(quán)損害賠償數(shù)額，有助于解決知識產(chǎn)權(quán)侵權(quán)損害賠償難問題，充分發(fā)揮司法保護(hù)知識產(chǎn)權(quán)發(fā)展的重要作用。
[Abstract]:To ascertain and accurately determine the amount of damages for infringement of intellectual property rights in the course of litigation for infringement of intellectual property rights, The key to determining the amount of damages for infringement lies in ascertaining the actual losses caused by the infringement by the obligee and the fact that the infringer has made profits from the infringement. However, the key to finding out the facts finally lies in the collection and identification of evidence, which solves the problem of collecting and recognizing the evidence of intellectual property rights (the evidence studied in this paper, Mainly refers to the amount of damages evidence, help to identify and accurately determine the amount of tort damages. In view of this, this paper analyzes the characteristics of evidence for compensation for intellectual property damage, points out the difficulties in collecting and examining evidence for damages in current judicial practice, and points out that through the flexible application of evidence rules, It can broaden the way of collecting evidence of compensation for damages and improve the ability of examining and confirming the evidence, which is helpful for the court to accurately determine the amount of damages for infringement. The evidence rules for intellectual property damages are divided into evidence collection rules and evidence recognition rules. The rules for the collection of evidence for intellectual property damage compensation include the rules for the preservation of evidence and the disclosure of evidence. Together, they improve the ability of the parties to collect evidence, broaden the channels of evidence collection, help to overcome the long-standing difficulty of obtaining evidence for intellectual property damage compensation, and allow more key evidence to enter the process of trial. To provide the necessary basis for ascertaining the facts of compensation for damages. The rules governing the determination of evidence for damages in intellectual property rights include the rules of proof hindrance, the standard of superior evidence and the system of expert auxiliaries. The proof hindrance rules impose necessary legal responsibility and consequences on the holders who provide negative evidence, ensure the effect of collecting evidence by using the rules of evidence preservation and disclosure, and provide the judges with solutions to the negative proof of evidence holders; The standard of superior evidence should reduce the proof standard of the loss of the right holder or the profit of the infringer, and emphasize that the judge can flexibly use the discretion to determine the amount of damages according to law, and reduce the mechanical application of the legal compensation; The expert assistant system makes up for the deficiency of the judicial expertise system in our country, improves the accuracy and credibility of the judicial expertise conclusion, and provides the professional reference for the judge to examine and judge the evidence of compensation for damages. The judicial system will gradually play a leading role in the protection of intellectual property rights. Only by rationally determining the amount of compensation for infringement damages can we effectively curb the infringement of intellectual property rights. Strengthening the research on the rules of evidence for compensation for intellectual property damage and flexibly applying the rules of evidence to find out the amount of compensation for infringement of intellectual property rights will help to solve the problem of the difficulty of compensation for infringement of intellectual property rights. We will give full play to the important role of judicial protection of intellectual property rights.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：華南理工大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2014
【分類號】：D923.4;D925.13

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

中國期刊全文數(shù)據(jù)庫 前7條

1 劉紅;淺析知識產(chǎn)權(quán)技術(shù)鑒定程序[J];電子知識產(chǎn)權(quán);2004年11期

2 鄒碧華;;我們應(yīng)當(dāng)怎樣對待證據(jù)規(guī)則[J];法律適用;2006年Z1期

3 張廣良;;舉證妨礙規(guī)則在知識產(chǎn)權(quán)訴訟中的適用問題研究[J];法律適用;2008年07期

4 邢學(xué)毅;;論在醫(yī)療糾紛訴訟中推行專家輔助人制度[J];證據(jù)科學(xué);2009年03期

5 常林;;司法鑒定與“案結(jié)事了”[J];證據(jù)科學(xué);2009年05期

6 徐春建;劉思彬;張學(xué)軍;;知識產(chǎn)權(quán)損害賠償?shù)淖C據(jù)規(guī)則[J];人民司法;2012年17期

7 張廣良;;舉證妨礙規(guī)則在知識產(chǎn)權(quán)案件中的適用——九陽公司、王旭寧訴帥佳公司等侵犯發(fā)明專利權(quán)糾紛案評析[J];中國專利與商標(biāo);2008年02期

本文編號：1632156