本文選題：知識產(chǎn)權(quán)技術(shù)意見 + 證據(jù)界定��； 參考：《中國政法大學(xué)》2017年碩士論文

【摘要】：在知識經(jīng)濟的時代,知識產(chǎn)權(quán)可謂是國家提高核心競爭力的戰(zhàn)略資源。黨的十八大提出“加強知識產(chǎn)權(quán)保護”的重大命題,加強知識產(chǎn)權(quán)保護是實行“創(chuàng)新驅(qū)動發(fā)展戰(zhàn)略”的必要條件。近些年,知識產(chǎn)權(quán)案件逐年遞增,各地知識產(chǎn)權(quán)法院不斷增高的判賠數(shù)額也受到眾多知識產(chǎn)權(quán)從業(yè)者的關(guān)注。一方面,說明國家提升了對知識產(chǎn)權(quán)保護的力度;另一方面,說明法官在審理知識產(chǎn)權(quán)訴訟案件時,無論是在事實認定還是法律適用都展現(xiàn)出應(yīng)有的水準與自信。但不可忽視的是,知識產(chǎn)權(quán)訴訟涉及的專門性問題復(fù)雜且種類繁多,單一法學(xué)背景的事實認定者來把握技術(shù)問題仍存在著現(xiàn)實困難。目前,針對知識產(chǎn)權(quán)訴訟中技術(shù)問題,人民法院基本形成較為完善的技術(shù)調(diào)查、技術(shù)咨詢、專家陪審和技術(shù)鑒定“四位一體”的技術(shù)事實調(diào)查認定體系。如此多種的技術(shù)問題查明方法勢必會形成多種多樣的技術(shù)問題意見書,如鑒定意見、專家咨詢意見、專家輔助人意見,甚至還有技術(shù)審查意見、技術(shù)調(diào)查官意見、法官評議意見等。實踐中,事實認定者很難對上述意見書的證據(jù)屬性以及適用規(guī)則達成統(tǒng)一的認識,學(xué)理上也沒有系統(tǒng)的劃分,這也是本文的意義所在。首先,筆者對多種類知識產(chǎn)權(quán)技術(shù)意見進行劃分,將技術(shù)意見劃分為“技術(shù)專家意見”和“法庭專家意見”兩類。其次,結(jié)合實踐中案例,具體分析每種技術(shù)意見的證據(jù)形式。最后,通過查閱文獻與論文寫作過程,知識產(chǎn)權(quán)技術(shù)意見的部分領(lǐng)域引發(fā)了筆者的思考,拋磚引玉,希望能得到更多學(xué)者的共鳴或爭論,從而得到進一步的研究。本文第一部分引入“知識產(chǎn)權(quán)技術(shù)意見”的概念并進行簡單的介紹和種類的劃分,將知識產(chǎn)權(quán)技術(shù)意見劃分為知識產(chǎn)權(quán)技術(shù)專家意見和法庭專家意見,系統(tǒng)總結(jié)了知識產(chǎn)權(quán)技術(shù)意見的特征。第二部分是針對知識產(chǎn)權(quán)技術(shù)專家意見的實證研究以及證據(jù)的界定。實證研究從委托主體、委托機構(gòu)和專家意見公信力三方面進行數(shù)據(jù)統(tǒng)計并簡要評析。由于案例材料的有限性,評析的內(nèi)容相較數(shù)據(jù)的比例研究意義更大。另外,對知識產(chǎn)權(quán)技術(shù)專家意見進行證據(jù)的界定。第三部分是對知識產(chǎn)權(quán)法庭專家意見證據(jù)可能性的分析,首先對不同種類的法庭專家意見進行詳細介紹。其次,總結(jié)出知識產(chǎn)權(quán)訴訟引入法庭專家的意義。最后,分別對技術(shù)調(diào)查官意見、技術(shù)審核意見和專家陪審員意見進行證據(jù)可能性分析第四部分是根據(jù)知識產(chǎn)權(quán)技術(shù)意見引發(fā)的思考,包括由技術(shù)專家意見研究引發(fā)的思考和由法庭專家意見研究引發(fā)的思考。
[Abstract]:In the era of knowledge economy, intellectual property is a strategic resource for the country to improve its core competitiveness. The 18th National Congress of the Communist Party of China put forward the important proposition of "strengthening the protection of intellectual property rights", and strengthening the protection of intellectual property rights is a necessary condition for the implementation of "innovation-driven development strategy". In recent years, intellectual property cases have been increasing year by year, and the increasing number of awards and indemnities by local intellectual property courts has also attracted the attention of many intellectual property practitioners. On the one hand, it shows that the state has enhanced the protection of intellectual property rights; on the other hand, it shows that judges in the trial of intellectual property litigation cases, whether in fact or in the application of the law all show due standards and self-confidence. However, it can not be ignored that the specialized problems involved in intellectual property litigation are complex and varied, and it is still difficult for the fact holders with a single legal background to grasp the technical problems. At present, in view of the technical problems in intellectual property litigation, the people's court has basically formed a relatively perfect system of technical investigation, technical consultation, expert jury and technical appraisal. Such a variety of technical problem identification methods are bound to form a variety of technical opinion opinions, such as expert opinions, expert advice, expert auxiliaries' opinions, and even technical review opinions, technical survey officers' opinions, A judge's opinion, etc. In practice, it is difficult for the facts to have a unified understanding of the evidentiary attributes and applicable rules of the above submissions, and there is no systematic division in theory, which is also the significance of this paper. First of all, the author divides the technical opinions of various kinds of intellectual property rights into two types: technical expert opinion and court expert opinion. Secondly, combined with practical cases, the concrete analysis of each technical opinion of the evidence form. Finally, by consulting the literature and the writing process of the thesis, some areas of intellectual property technical opinions have aroused the author's thinking, and the author hopes to get more scholars' resonance or debate, and thus get further research. The first part of this paper introduces the concept of "technical opinion on intellectual property" and makes a brief introduction and classification, and divides the technical opinion of intellectual property into expert opinion of intellectual property technology and expert opinion of court. The characteristics of intellectual property technical opinions are summarized systematically. The second part is the empirical research and the definition of evidence in view of intellectual property technical expert opinion. The empirical study analyzes and analyzes the data from three aspects: the principal body, the agency and the credibility of the expert opinion. Due to the limitation of case materials, the content of assessment is more significant than the proportion of data. In addition, the intellectual property rights technical expert opinion to carry on the evidence definition. The third part is the analysis of the possibility of the expert opinion of intellectual property court. Secondly, it summarizes the significance of introducing court experts into intellectual property litigation. Finally, the author analyzes the possibility of evidence from the opinions of technical investigation officers, technical audit opinions and expert jurors respectively. The fourth part is based on the thinking caused by the technical opinions on intellectual property rights. It includes the thinking caused by the technical expert opinion research and the court expert opinion research.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：中國政法大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2017
【分類號】：D923.4

【相似文獻】

相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前1條

1 陳奎良;知識產(chǎn)權(quán)技術(shù)意見證據(jù)的相關(guān)問題研究[D];中國政法大學(xué);2017年

，

本文編號：1825334