【摘要】：本選題以知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)的審判機(jī)制為著眼點(diǎn),通過(guò)對(duì)國(guó)內(nèi)外研究成果和機(jī)制建設(shè)進(jìn)行系統(tǒng)的探求,對(duì)我國(guó)知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)審判的三審合一的模式進(jìn)行了系統(tǒng)的研究。三審合一模式下的知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)審判機(jī)制是對(duì)現(xiàn)有的三審分立的審判機(jī)制的發(fā)展,符合知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)案件審判的特點(diǎn),符合我國(guó)現(xiàn)階段知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)案件審理的要求,有利于訴訟價(jià)值的實(shí)現(xiàn)。三審合一模式下的知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)審判機(jī)制,是指將知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)相關(guān)的刑事案件、民事案件和以及行政案件,在統(tǒng)一的知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)庭進(jìn)行審理,不再根據(jù)法院內(nèi)部職能機(jī)構(gòu)劃分和現(xiàn)行的訴訟法規(guī)定進(jìn)行審理。通過(guò)對(duì)上海、廣東和湖南的改革實(shí)踐的和德國(guó)、日本、美國(guó)、中國(guó)臺(tái)灣等國(guó)家和地區(qū)的知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)審判機(jī)制進(jìn)行分析,得出建立三審合一模式下的知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)審判機(jī)制既是我國(guó)司法工作的要求,也是我國(guó)實(shí)現(xiàn)知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)案件司法公正的必由之路。但是在我國(guó)的三審合一的知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)審判機(jī)制改革實(shí)踐中也存在著很多的問(wèn)題。如相關(guān)法律法規(guī)的缺失、三審合一的知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)審判法庭建設(shè)、“先刑后民”與“先民后刑”理念的矛盾、技術(shù)事實(shí)查明機(jī)制存在缺陷、人才隊(duì)伍建設(shè)落后等方面的問(wèn)題。在三審合一的知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)審判機(jī)制的建設(shè)過(guò)程中要注重三審合一知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)審判機(jī)制的法律依據(jù)建設(shè)、完善三審合一模式下的知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)審判法庭建設(shè)、由傳統(tǒng)的“先刑后民”調(diào)整到“先民后刑”、加強(qiáng)三審合一模式下的專業(yè)技術(shù)事實(shí)查明機(jī)制建設(shè)、完善人才培養(yǎng)機(jī)制建設(shè)。
[Abstract]:This topic focuses on the trial mechanism of intellectual property rights, through the research results and mechanism construction at home and abroad for a systematic exploration, the third trial of intellectual property rights trial mode of integration of a systematic study. The trial mechanism of intellectual property under the mode of "three trials in one" is the development of the existing trial mechanism of the separation of three trials, which conforms to the characteristics of the trial of intellectual property cases and meets the requirements of the trial of intellectual property cases at the present stage in our country. It is beneficial to the realization of litigation value. The trial mechanism of intellectual property under the mode of three-trial integration refers to the trial of criminal cases, civil cases and administrative cases related to intellectual property rights in a unified intellectual property court. No longer in accordance with the internal functional division of the court and the existing procedural provisions of the trial. Through the analysis of the reform practices in Shanghai, Guangdong and Hunan and the intellectual property trial mechanisms of Germany, Japan, the United States, Taiwan and other countries and regions, It is not only the requirement of judicial work but also the only way to realize the judicial justice of intellectual property cases in China to establish the trial mechanism of intellectual property under the mode of "three trials in one". However, there are many problems in the reform of intellectual property trial mechanism. For example, the lack of relevant laws and regulations, the construction of intellectual property trial court with the combination of three trials, the contradiction between "first punishment after people" and "first people after punishment", the defects in the mechanism of finding out the technical facts, the backward construction of talent team, and so on. In the course of the construction of the intellectual property trial mechanism, we should pay attention to the construction of the legal basis of the intellectual property trial mechanism, and perfect the construction of the intellectual property trial court under the mode of triple trial. From the traditional "first punishment before the people" to "the first people after the punishment", we should strengthen the construction of the mechanism of finding out the facts of professional technology under the mode of "three trials in one", and perfect the construction of the talent training mechanism.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：中南大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2013
【分類號(hào)】：D923.4

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 孫海龍;;知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)審判體制改革的理論思考與路徑選擇[J];法律適用;2010年09期

2 盛學(xué)友;;“三合一”給我們帶來(lái)了什么——探訪上海知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)“三審合一”新機(jī)制[J];法律與生活;2009年24期

3 胡瀟瀟;;知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)行政執(zhí)法與民事訴訟的沖突與協(xié)調(diào)——以知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)侵權(quán)救濟(jì)為視角[J];貴州警官職業(yè)學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2009年03期

4 林廣海;;“三審合一”——知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)案件司法保護(hù)新機(jī)制述評(píng)[J];河北法學(xué);2007年02期

5 傅利英;張曉東;;臺(tái)灣地區(qū)智慧財(cái)產(chǎn)法院制度及運(yùn)作狀況述評(píng)——兼評(píng)與大陸法院試行的“三審合一”模式的區(qū)別[J];科技與法律;2009年05期

6 王燕;張軍亮;;TRIPS協(xié)議下我國(guó)知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)司法保護(hù)的新機(jī)制探究[J];南華大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2009年04期

7 ;國(guó)家知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)戰(zhàn)略架構(gòu)下的司法保護(hù)[J];人民司法;2009年11期

8 易健雄;;知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)訴訟中的專家證人制度[J];人民司法;2009年11期

9 戴建志;;評(píng)江蘇基層法院的知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)審判[J];人民司法;2010年01期

10 高遠(yuǎn);;咨詢專家助陣知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)審判[J];上海人大月刊;2010年01期

，

本文編號(hào)：2152277