知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)糾紛調(diào)解機(jī)制研究
發(fā)布時(shí)間：2018-07-17 19:36
【摘要】：本文關(guān)注的焦點(diǎn)是,在建設(shè)創(chuàng)新型國家與構(gòu)建和諧社會(huì)的背景下,面對(duì)現(xiàn)行知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)糾紛解決機(jī)制的困境,如何構(gòu)建能凸顯知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)糾紛特殊性的糾紛分流與調(diào)解機(jī)制,以妥善、高效解決知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)糾紛。 在全球化時(shí)代,知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)激勵(lì)創(chuàng)新的功能日益凸顯;知識(shí)經(jīng)濟(jì)時(shí)代,知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)成為國家核心競(jìng)爭(zhēng)力的源泉。相應(yīng)地,知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)人由注重權(quán)利保護(hù)轉(zhuǎn)向更多關(guān)注權(quán)利的經(jīng)營與管理戰(zhàn)略。作為私權(quán)的知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán),是權(quán)利人可以自由支配、處分的權(quán)利;作為無形財(cái)產(chǎn)權(quán)的知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán),具有法定性、無形性與有期限性等特征。這些區(qū)別于傳統(tǒng)民事權(quán)利的特性是研究知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)糾紛解決機(jī)制的起點(diǎn)。 由于知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)糾紛的專業(yè)性與技術(shù)性,民間調(diào)解與仲裁等非訟解決方式較少被采用,訴訟成為解決知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)糾紛的主要渠道。而在訴訟中,侵權(quán)人常常以請(qǐng)求宣告權(quán)利無效來對(duì)抗權(quán)利人,這就形成民事糾紛與行政糾紛的交叉,民事程序勢(shì)必要中止,而需等待行政程序的結(jié)果,這使得知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)訴訟程序冗長(zhǎng)。在絕大多數(shù)糾紛依賴訴訟渠道解決的情況下,冗長(zhǎng)的訴訟程序卻難以高效化解日趨增長(zhǎng)的知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)糾紛。 為緩解日益增長(zhǎng)的審判壓力,提高糾紛解決的效率;也為踐行“和諧社會(huì)”理念與“司法為民”的司法政策,我國法院前所未有地重視知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)糾紛的訴訟調(diào)解�！叭陶{(diào)解”和“全員調(diào)解”也成為諸多法院所總結(jié)的“經(jīng)驗(yàn)”,調(diào)解率被納入法官與法院考核指標(biāo)體系則是其異化到極致的體現(xiàn)。實(shí)踐中,法官難以把握“調(diào)解者”與“審判者”的角色定位;而且,由于存在自身利益追求,法官難免隱秘地“以勸壓調(diào)、以拖壓調(diào)、以判壓調(diào)、以誘壓調(diào)”。因此,訴訟調(diào)解悖離了調(diào)解的中立性本質(zhì)。 由上可見,訴訟與非訟方式的難以有效協(xié)調(diào)運(yùn)行,知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)糾紛多元化解決機(jī)制并未合理構(gòu)建。這雖然有知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)糾紛自身特殊性的原因,但根本原因在于我國當(dāng)下的知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)糾紛解決機(jī)制是從糾紛客體出發(fā)建構(gòu)的,較少關(guān)注當(dāng)事人因素對(duì)糾紛解決的影響。而糾紛解決是消除當(dāng)事人之間利益沖突的過程,實(shí)際上是當(dāng)事人利益博弈的過程。因此,如果不以當(dāng)事人為出發(fā)點(diǎn),就無法找到不同個(gè)體間糾紛的共同規(guī)律,也就無法合理分流糾紛并配置恰當(dāng)?shù)慕鉀Q方式。這就有必要考量當(dāng)事人因素對(duì)糾紛解決方式選擇的影響。根據(jù)博弈論分析當(dāng)事人基于利益訴求而選擇的行為策略,較之基于糾紛本身的法律分析更能把握糾紛解決的關(guān)鍵,也能明確沖突的焦點(diǎn)。 知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)糾紛中,權(quán)利人利益目標(biāo)具有多元性,有的追求基本利益(實(shí)現(xiàn)知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)的價(jià)值),有的追求對(duì)抗性利益(禁止他人使用),有的追求雙重利益結(jié)合;侵權(quán)人亦是如此。據(jù)此可將知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)糾紛劃分為三大類型:當(dāng)事人利益相似性好的A類糾紛、當(dāng)事人利益相似性較好的B類糾紛與當(dāng)事人利益相似性差的C類糾紛。 知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)糾紛解決機(jī)制運(yùn)行中糾紛需經(jīng)兩次分流,第一次分流是由權(quán)利人選擇或當(dāng)事人約定進(jìn)入調(diào)解、仲裁或訴訟程序;第二次分流則是糾紛經(jīng)權(quán)利人選擇進(jìn)入訴訟程序后,以當(dāng)事人預(yù)期利益目標(biāo)為基礎(chǔ)將糾紛類型化,進(jìn)而配置相應(yīng)的糾紛解決方式,將現(xiàn)行的訴訟調(diào)解從訴訟中剝離,納入法院附設(shè)的仲裁—調(diào)解程序。通過糾紛的兩次分流,促成當(dāng)事人從“非零和博弈”視角解決糾紛,構(gòu)建高效的知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)糾紛調(diào)解機(jī)制。 知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)糾紛調(diào)解機(jī)制的構(gòu)建,應(yīng)緊扣時(shí)代背景,處理好非訟與訴訟的辯證關(guān)系,不妨礙當(dāng)事人的選擇權(quán)。知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)糾紛調(diào)解應(yīng)堅(jiān)持當(dāng)事人自主、調(diào)解員中立、調(diào)解協(xié)議合法與合作雙贏的原則。調(diào)解的成功運(yùn)用離不開調(diào)解規(guī)則與規(guī)律的恰當(dāng)把握。
[Abstract]:The focus of this article is that, in the context of building an innovative country and building a harmonious society, in the face of the plight of the existing intellectual property dispute resolution mechanism, how to build a dispute diversion and mediation mechanism that can highlight the particularity of intellectual property rights disputes, so as to properly and efficiently solve the dispute of knowledge production rights.
In the era of globalization, the function of intellectual property incentive and innovation has become increasingly prominent; intellectual property rights become the source of national core competitiveness in the era of knowledge economy. Accordingly, intellectual property owners turn from rights protection to more rights management and management strategies. As the intellectual property rights of private rights, the right holders can freely control and dispose of the rights. As an intangible property right, intellectual property has the characteristics of legality, invisibility and duration, which are different from the characteristics of traditional civil rights as the starting point for the study of the dispute settlement mechanism of intellectual property rights.
Because of the professionalism and technical nature of intellectual property disputes, non litigation solutions such as civil mediation and arbitration are seldom adopted, and litigation has become the main channel for solving intellectual property disputes. In litigation, the tortfeasor often claims to declare the right ineffective against the right holder, which forms a cross between civil and administrative disputes, and the civil procedure is a civil procedure. It is bound to stop and wait for the results of the administrative procedure, which makes the intellectual property litigation procedure lengthy. In the case of the overwhelming majority of disputes depending on the litigation channels, the lengthy procedure is difficult to efficiently resolve the growing intellectual property disputes.
In order to alleviate the increasing trial pressure, improve the efficiency of dispute resolution, and to practice the "harmonious society" concept and the judicial policy of "judicature for the people", the court of our country attaches great importance to the litigation mediation of intellectual property disputes. "Whole mediation" and "full mediation" have also become the "experience" summed up by many courts, the rate of mediation. In practice, the judge is difficult to grasp the role of the "mediator" and the "adjudicator" in practice. In addition, because of its own interests, the judge can not avoid the secret "to persuade the press, to drag and press, to judge the pressure, to lure the pressure". Therefore, the litigation mediation is contrary to the law. The nature of neutrality of mediation.
It is difficult to effectively coordinate the operation of litigation and non litigation, and the diversified solution mechanism of intellectual property disputes is not reasonably constructed. Although there are reasons for the particularity of intellectual property disputes, the fundamental reason is that the current dispute settlement mechanism of intellectual property rights in China is constructed from the object of the dispute, and less attention is paid to the parties. The dispute settlement is the process of eliminating the conflict between the parties. In fact, it is the process of the game of the interests of the parties. Therefore, if the party is not the starting point, it is impossible to find the common law of the different individual disputes, and it will not be reasonable to divide the disputes and to configure the appropriate solution. It is necessary to examine the influence of the parties on the choice of the dispute resolution. According to the game theory, the party's behavior strategy based on the interest demands is more important than the legal analysis based on the dispute itself, and the focus of the conflict can be clearly defined.
In intellectual property disputes, the interests of the right holders are pluralistic, and some pursue the basic interests (the value of intellectual property), some pursue the antagonistic interests (prohibit the use of others), and some pursue the combination of double interests, and the infringers can also be divided into three types: a good A of the interests of the parties. B disputes with similar interests and similar interests between the parties have similar C disputes.
In the operation of the dispute settlement mechanism of intellectual property rights, the dispute needs to be divided by two times. The first diversion is the choice of the right holder or the parties' agreement to enter the mediation, arbitration or litigation procedure; the second diversion is a dispute typed on the basis of the prospective interests of the parties, and then the corresponding allocation is made after the right person has chosen to enter the procedure. The dispute settlement method will remove the current litigation mediation from the lawsuit and bring into the arbitration and mediation procedure attached by the court. Through the two diversion of the dispute, the parties can solve the dispute from the perspective of "non zero sum game" and construct an efficient mediation mechanism of intellectual property disputes.
The construction of the mediation mechanism of intellectual property disputes should be closely linked to the background of the times, deal with the dialectical relationship between non litigation and litigation, and do not interfere with the right of the parties. The mediation of intellectual property disputes should adhere to the principle of the autonomy of the parties, the neutrality of the mediator and the win-win of the legal and cooperation of the mediation agreement. The successful application of the mediation should not be separated from the rules and laws of mediation. Be sure.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：湘潭大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：博士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2008
【分類號(hào)】：D915.2;D913
本文編號(hào)：2130716
[Abstract]:The focus of this article is that, in the context of building an innovative country and building a harmonious society, in the face of the plight of the existing intellectual property dispute resolution mechanism, how to build a dispute diversion and mediation mechanism that can highlight the particularity of intellectual property rights disputes, so as to properly and efficiently solve the dispute of knowledge production rights.
In the era of globalization, the function of intellectual property incentive and innovation has become increasingly prominent; intellectual property rights become the source of national core competitiveness in the era of knowledge economy. Accordingly, intellectual property owners turn from rights protection to more rights management and management strategies. As the intellectual property rights of private rights, the right holders can freely control and dispose of the rights. As an intangible property right, intellectual property has the characteristics of legality, invisibility and duration, which are different from the characteristics of traditional civil rights as the starting point for the study of the dispute settlement mechanism of intellectual property rights.
Because of the professionalism and technical nature of intellectual property disputes, non litigation solutions such as civil mediation and arbitration are seldom adopted, and litigation has become the main channel for solving intellectual property disputes. In litigation, the tortfeasor often claims to declare the right ineffective against the right holder, which forms a cross between civil and administrative disputes, and the civil procedure is a civil procedure. It is bound to stop and wait for the results of the administrative procedure, which makes the intellectual property litigation procedure lengthy. In the case of the overwhelming majority of disputes depending on the litigation channels, the lengthy procedure is difficult to efficiently resolve the growing intellectual property disputes.
In order to alleviate the increasing trial pressure, improve the efficiency of dispute resolution, and to practice the "harmonious society" concept and the judicial policy of "judicature for the people", the court of our country attaches great importance to the litigation mediation of intellectual property disputes. "Whole mediation" and "full mediation" have also become the "experience" summed up by many courts, the rate of mediation. In practice, the judge is difficult to grasp the role of the "mediator" and the "adjudicator" in practice. In addition, because of its own interests, the judge can not avoid the secret "to persuade the press, to drag and press, to judge the pressure, to lure the pressure". Therefore, the litigation mediation is contrary to the law. The nature of neutrality of mediation.
It is difficult to effectively coordinate the operation of litigation and non litigation, and the diversified solution mechanism of intellectual property disputes is not reasonably constructed. Although there are reasons for the particularity of intellectual property disputes, the fundamental reason is that the current dispute settlement mechanism of intellectual property rights in China is constructed from the object of the dispute, and less attention is paid to the parties. The dispute settlement is the process of eliminating the conflict between the parties. In fact, it is the process of the game of the interests of the parties. Therefore, if the party is not the starting point, it is impossible to find the common law of the different individual disputes, and it will not be reasonable to divide the disputes and to configure the appropriate solution. It is necessary to examine the influence of the parties on the choice of the dispute resolution. According to the game theory, the party's behavior strategy based on the interest demands is more important than the legal analysis based on the dispute itself, and the focus of the conflict can be clearly defined.
In intellectual property disputes, the interests of the right holders are pluralistic, and some pursue the basic interests (the value of intellectual property), some pursue the antagonistic interests (prohibit the use of others), and some pursue the combination of double interests, and the infringers can also be divided into three types: a good A of the interests of the parties. B disputes with similar interests and similar interests between the parties have similar C disputes.
In the operation of the dispute settlement mechanism of intellectual property rights, the dispute needs to be divided by two times. The first diversion is the choice of the right holder or the parties' agreement to enter the mediation, arbitration or litigation procedure; the second diversion is a dispute typed on the basis of the prospective interests of the parties, and then the corresponding allocation is made after the right person has chosen to enter the procedure. The dispute settlement method will remove the current litigation mediation from the lawsuit and bring into the arbitration and mediation procedure attached by the court. Through the two diversion of the dispute, the parties can solve the dispute from the perspective of "non zero sum game" and construct an efficient mediation mechanism of intellectual property disputes.
The construction of the mediation mechanism of intellectual property disputes should be closely linked to the background of the times, deal with the dialectical relationship between non litigation and litigation, and do not interfere with the right of the parties. The mediation of intellectual property disputes should adhere to the principle of the autonomy of the parties, the neutrality of the mediator and the win-win of the legal and cooperation of the mediation agreement. The successful application of the mediation should not be separated from the rules and laws of mediation. Be sure.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：湘潭大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：博士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2008
【分類號(hào)】：D915.2;D913
【引證文獻(xiàn)】
相關(guān)期刊論文 前1條
1 王蓮峰;張江;;知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)糾紛調(diào)解問題研究[J];東方法學(xué);2011年01期
相關(guān)博士學(xué)位論文 前1條
1 董舒翼;通信業(yè)知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)發(fā)展影響因素研究[D];北京郵電大學(xué);2011年
相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前4條
1 楊碩;論知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)糾紛中法院附設(shè)替代性糾紛解決機(jī)制的運(yùn)用[D];鄭州大學(xué);2011年
2 孫那;論我國商業(yè)標(biāo)識(shí)的權(quán)利沖突及其解決[D];中國青年政治學(xué)院;2012年
3 汪鈴添;成都高新區(qū)創(chuàng)業(yè)軟環(huán)境評(píng)價(jià)研究[D];西南交通大學(xué);2011年
4 顏艷;商標(biāo)糾紛調(diào)解制度研究[D];湖南師范大學(xué);2012年
，本文編號(hào)：2130716
本文鏈接：http://sikaile.net/falvlunwen/zhishichanquanfa/2130716.html
最近更新
教材專著
