發(fā)布時(shí)間：2018-03-19 07:04

  本文選題：反壟斷法　切入點(diǎn)：專利權(quán)濫用　出處：《中南大學(xué)》2011年碩士論文　論文類型：學(xué)位論文

【摘要】：專利權(quán)濫用是指專利權(quán)所有人或獨(dú)占實(shí)施的被許可人在實(shí)施權(quán)利的過程中,超出了法律允許的范圍或正當(dāng)?shù)慕缦?損害他人正當(dāng)利益或社會(huì)公共利益的行為。它主要有四個(gè)構(gòu)成要件：主體為專利權(quán)所有人或獨(dú)占實(shí)施的被許可人；客體是國家的、集體的或者他人的合法的權(quán)益；主觀上權(quán)利人有過錯(cuò),包括故意和過失；客觀上造成了直接或間接地?fù)p害后果或損害威脅�，F(xiàn)在市場活動(dòng)中,專利權(quán)濫用行為主要觸犯反壟斷法的規(guī)定,表現(xiàn)為搭售、拒絕許可、不合理定價(jià)、專利聯(lián)營等形式。國外特別是美國、歐盟和日本,其反壟斷法規(guī)制專利權(quán)濫用的發(fā)展較為完善,其優(yōu)秀的經(jīng)驗(yàn)表現(xiàn)為：反壟斷法是規(guī)制專利權(quán)濫用主要的法律,對其的規(guī)制也首先與其他壟斷行為一樣對待；專門的反壟斷執(zhí)法機(jī)關(guān)不僅適時(shí)地制定相關(guān)指南,將反壟斷法的一般適用有針對性地適用到知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)領(lǐng)域,而且還會(huì)設(shè)置知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)領(lǐng)域反壟斷法的專職機(jī)構(gòu),共同保障對專利權(quán)濫用行為規(guī)制的實(shí)施。在我國《反壟斷法》中,處理知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)領(lǐng)域反壟斷問題時(shí)最直接的規(guī)定就是第五十五條。該規(guī)定確定了對專利權(quán)濫用構(gòu)成壟斷行為適用的同等原則及合理原則,也明確了濫用專利權(quán)造成排除或限制競爭時(shí)要承擔(dān)的行政責(zé)任、民事責(zé)任等。但這一原則性規(guī)定可操作性不強(qiáng),加上專利權(quán)濫用行為的專業(yè)性和復(fù)雜性,我國單一的、行政占主導(dǎo)的反壟斷法實(shí)施機(jī)制不能應(yīng)對全部的專利權(quán)濫用反壟斷案件。所以需要在現(xiàn)有法律制度上,進(jìn)一步細(xì)化濫用專利權(quán)構(gòu)成壟斷行為的認(rèn)定標(biāo)準(zhǔn)、加強(qiáng)反壟斷執(zhí)法審查機(jī)構(gòu)的建設(shè),反壟斷法也需要與專利法對其協(xié)調(diào)規(guī)制。在處理糾紛時(shí),引入私人訴訟、和解等多元化的糾紛解決機(jī)制,從程序上和實(shí)體上完善反壟斷法規(guī)制專利權(quán)濫用的體系。
[Abstract]:The abuse of patent right means that the patent owner or exclusive licensee exceeds the scope or the proper limit permitted by law in the course of the exercise of the right. The act of harming the legitimate interests of others or the public interests of the society. It has four main constitutive requirements: the subject is the owner of the patent right or the licensee who is monopolized, the object is the state, the collective or the legitimate rights and interests of others; Subjectively, the obligee is at fault, including intentional and negligent; objectively, it has caused direct or indirect damage consequences or damage threats. At present, in market activities, the abuse of patent rights mainly violates the provisions of the anti-monopoly law and manifests itself as a tying sale. In foreign countries, especially in the United States, the European Union and Japan, the development of anti-monopoly laws to regulate the abuse of patent rights is relatively perfect. Its outstanding experience shows that: Anti-monopoly law is the main law to regulate patent abuse, and its regulation is first the same as other monopoly behavior; the specialized anti-monopoly law enforcement agencies not only formulate relevant guidelines in good time, The general application of anti-monopoly law will be applied to the field of intellectual property, and a full-time organization of anti-monopoly law in the field of intellectual property will be set up to jointly guarantee the enforcement of the regulation of patent abuse. The most direct provision in dealing with antitrust issues in the field of intellectual property is 55th. This provision establishes the same principles and reasonable principles applicable to the abuse of patent rights that constitute monopolies. It also clarifies the administrative liability and civil liability to be borne when the abuse of patent rights results in the exclusion or restriction of competition. However, this principled provision is not operable, and because of the professionalism and complexity of patent abuse, our country is single. The enforcement mechanism of the administrative dominant anti-monopoly law cannot cope with all cases of patent abuse and anti-monopoly. Therefore, it is necessary to further refine the criteria for the identification of patent abuse constituting monopoly in the existing legal system. To strengthen the construction of the anti-monopoly law enforcement review agency, the anti-monopoly law also needs to coordinate with the patent law to regulate it. When dealing with disputes, a diversified dispute resolution mechanism, such as private litigation and reconciliation, is introduced. Improve the system of anti-monopoly law to regulate patent abuse in procedure and entity.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：中南大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2011
【分類號(hào)】：D922.294

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前4條

1 鄭友德;胡章怡;;歐盟知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)濫用的反壟斷問題研究——以歐盟新修訂的《技術(shù)許可協(xié)議集體豁免條例》為中心[J];法學(xué)評論;2006年06期

2 黃良才;;專利聯(lián)盟中的搭售問題分析——以MPEG LA下的H.264、DVB-T專利池為視角[J];電子知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán);2007年10期

3 鄭鵬程;美國反壟斷法“本身違法”與“合理法則”適用范圍探討[J];河北法學(xué);2005年10期

4 王先林;若干國家和地區(qū)對知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)濫用的反壟斷控制[J];武漢大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2003年02期

相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前2條

1 趙成;論我國專利權(quán)濫用及其反壟斷法規(guī)制[D];上海交通大學(xué);2007年

2 鄭風(fēng);論美國限制專利權(quán)濫用制度對我國立法的借鑒意義[D];對外經(jīng)濟(jì)貿(mào)易大學(xué);2007年

，

本文編號(hào)：1633312