本文選題：專利權(quán)的有效性 + 專利侵權(quán)訴訟程序　； 參考：《吉林大學(xué)》2017年碩士論文

【摘要】：我國專利確權(quán)與侵權(quán)糾紛的處理方式不同,專利侵權(quán)糾紛由人民法院適用民事訴訟程序?qū)徖?而專利無效糾紛由專利復(fù)審委員會(huì)(以下簡(jiǎn)稱復(fù)審委)處理,對(duì)復(fù)審委的決定不服提起訴訟后由北京知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)法院適用行政訴訟程序?qū)徖�。在專利侵�?quán)案件中,若當(dāng)事人啟動(dòng)了專利確權(quán)程序主張認(rèn)定專利權(quán)的效力,就會(huì)導(dǎo)致專利確權(quán)程序與侵權(quán)訴訟程序的交叉。如果專利權(quán)無效,被告就不會(huì)侵犯專利權(quán),這就是專利確權(quán)程序與專利侵權(quán)程序常常同時(shí)存在的原因,在同一專利的確權(quán)與侵權(quán)案中,專利權(quán)有效性的結(jié)論非常重要。專利侵權(quán)案的當(dāng)事人請(qǐng)求宣告專利權(quán)無效時(shí),法院要裁定是否中止案件的審理,中止?fàn)顟B(tài)下需要等待專利確權(quán)程序的審查結(jié)論,不能快速解決糾紛;不中止可能導(dǎo)致侵權(quán)判決與專利權(quán)有效性的審查結(jié)論沖突的狀況。實(shí)踐中專利確權(quán)程序與專利侵權(quán)訴訟程序不協(xié)調(diào),司法機(jī)關(guān)和行政機(jī)關(guān)常常各自為政,嚴(yán)重影響了解決糾紛的效率。判定專利權(quán)有效性的權(quán)力和審理專利侵權(quán)案件的權(quán)力相分離,這種職權(quán)分離模式的優(yōu)點(diǎn)是復(fù)審委能夠集中審查問題專利,確保審查結(jié)論的正確性和權(quán)威性,缺點(diǎn)是容易導(dǎo)致專利侵權(quán)案件久拖不決。處理專利糾紛的這種職權(quán)分離的模式是實(shí)踐中種種問題出現(xiàn)的部分原因,但不是矛盾產(chǎn)生的根源。德國也嚴(yán)格劃分無效訴訟與侵權(quán)訴訟之間的路徑,采取職權(quán)分離的模式,但沒有出現(xiàn)我國這種訴訟中止時(shí)間長(zhǎng),審判結(jié)論沖突的問題。我國僅僅形式上學(xué)習(xí)了德國這種職權(quán)分離的模式,但具體制度的設(shè)計(jì)并不完善,例如專利侵權(quán)案件的審判權(quán)分散,專利確權(quán)程序不完善,專利確權(quán)與專利侵權(quán)案件的審理程序不協(xié)調(diào)。盲目打破職權(quán)分離的模式,仍然會(huì)出現(xiàn)裁判沖突的狀況。專利侵權(quán)案件的審判法院比較分散,法官的審案能力良莠不齊,如果賦予審理專利侵權(quán)案件的法院認(rèn)定專利權(quán)效力的權(quán)力,不能準(zhǔn)確判定專利權(quán)的效力,會(huì)出現(xiàn)不同的司法機(jī)關(guān)對(duì)同一件專利的效力認(rèn)定不同的狀況,也無法避免法院的判決與專利復(fù)審委員會(huì)的決定沖突的情況。通過介紹美國、日本、德國三國專利無效糾紛與專利侵權(quán)糾紛的處理方式可以了解各國制度的優(yōu)缺點(diǎn),也可以掌握各國對(duì)該制度的改革方向。美國主要由司法機(jī)關(guān)負(fù)責(zé)專利無效的審判工作,近年來,美國加強(qiáng)了行政機(jī)關(guān)審查專利權(quán)效力的權(quán)力。德國嚴(yán)格劃分專利侵權(quán)審判與專利無效審判之間的路徑,其優(yōu)點(diǎn)在于統(tǒng)一全國范圍內(nèi)專利無效的審查標(biāo)準(zhǔn),確保無效決定的正確性和權(quán)威性。德國近幾年在不斷地完善專利無效審判的制度,提高審判效率和水平,縮短專利確權(quán)的時(shí)間,提高解決專利糾紛的效率。日本主要由行政機(jī)關(guān)負(fù)責(zé)專利無效的審判工作,其在近幾年的知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)制度的改革過程中嘗試通過司法途徑在侵權(quán)案中判定專利權(quán)的效力。在職權(quán)分離的模式下,完善具體的制度內(nèi)容能夠有效緩解實(shí)踐中的種種矛盾。完善專利確權(quán)程序,避免循環(huán)訴訟的發(fā)生,有效提高解決專利侵權(quán)糾紛的效率;集中審理專利侵權(quán)案件,加強(qiáng)判案人員的技術(shù)查明的能力;建立統(tǒng)一的知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)上訴法院協(xié)調(diào)專利確權(quán)程序與侵權(quán)案件審理程序的結(jié)論,維護(hù)裁判的統(tǒng)一性和權(quán)威性。
[Abstract]:In our country, the patent right is different from the tort dispute, and the patent infringement dispute is tried by the people's court, and the patent invalid dispute is dealt with by the patent retrial Committee (hereinafter referred to as the retrial Committee), and the administrative proceedings of the Beijing intellectual property court will be tried after the decision of the retrial Committee. In the case of patent infringement, if the parties start the patent right procedure to assert the validity of the patent right, it will lead to the cross between the patent right procedure and the tort litigation procedure. If the patent is invalid, the defendant will not infringe the patent right, which is the reason that the patent right procedure and the patent infringement procedure often exist at the same time, in the same patent. In the case of right and tort, the conclusion of the validity of patent right is very important. When the parties to the case of patent infringement claim that the patent right is invalid, the court shall decide whether to suspend the trial, and to wait for the conclusion of the examination of the patent right procedure under the suspension state, and can not solve the dispute quickly; the infringement may lead to the infringement judgment and the patent right. The status of the conflict of validity is examined. In practice, the patent right procedure and the patent infringement litigation procedure are incompatible, the judicial organs and the administrative organs often do their own affairs, which seriously affect the efficiency of the dispute resolution. The power of determining the validity of the patent right is separated from the power of the patent infringement case, and the advantages of this separation model are the advantages of the patent right. It is the right and authority of the review committee to focus on the question of the question, to ensure the correctness and authority of the conclusion of the review, and to cause the patent infringement cases to be prolonged. This separation model for dealing with patent disputes is part of the reasons for the emergence of various problems in practice, but not the root cause of the contradiction. The path between the tort litigation takes the mode of separation of powers and powers, but it does not appear in the long time of discontinuation of the lawsuit and the conflict of the conclusion of the trial. Our country only learned the model of the separation of powers in Germany, but the design of the specific system is not perfect, such as the decentralization of the right of trial in the special infringement cases, and the procedure of patent right confirmation. Perfect, patent right and patent infringement case trial procedure is not coordinated. Blindly breaking the mode of separation of powers and powers, there will still be the situation of the referee conflict. The trial courts of the patent infringement cases are more scattered, the judges' ability to examine the case is indifferent, and if the court is given the power to determine the validity of the patent right to the court to hear the patent infringement case, To determine the validity of the patent right accurately, there will be different conditions for the different judicial organs to determine the validity of the same patent, and can not avoid the conflict between the decision of the court and the decision of the patent review committee. The advantages and disadvantages of the system can also grasp the direction of the reform of the system. In the United States, the United States is mainly responsible for the invalidity of the patent trial by the judiciary. In recent years, the United States has strengthened the power of the administration to examine the potency of the patent right. In the past few years, Germany has continuously improved the system of patent invalid trial, improved the efficiency and level of the trial, shortened the time of the patent right, and improved the efficiency of resolving patent disputes. In the course of the reform of intellectual property system in recent years, we try to judge the potency of patent right in the case of tort by judicial approach. In the mode of separation of powers, the perfection of specific system content can effectively alleviate the contradictions in practice, improve the patent right procedure, avoid the occurrence of circular litigation, and effectively improve the dispute resolution of patent infringement. In order to maintain the unity and authority of the umpire, we should concentrate on the trial of patent infringement cases, strengthen the ability of the judges to find out the technology, and establish the conclusion of the unified intellectual property right appeals court to coordinate the patent right procedure and the tort case trial procedure.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：吉林大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2017
【分類號(hào)】：D923.42

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)博士學(xué)位論文 前1條

1 易玲;專利確權(quán)機(jī)制研究[D];湘潭大學(xué);2012年

相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前1條

1 張留豐;我國專利確權(quán)與侵權(quán)訴訟銜接機(jī)制研究[D];華東政法大學(xué);2011年

，

本文編號(hào)：2062738