我國專利權(quán)用盡原則適用研究
發(fā)布時間：2018-10-22 17:24
【摘要】：專利技術(shù)是發(fā)明創(chuàng)造人智慧尤其是創(chuàng)造性的結(jié)晶，為了尊重和鼓勵發(fā)明創(chuàng)造人的智力成果，各個國家的法律紛紛賦予發(fā)明創(chuàng)造人一定的權(quán)利--專利權(quán)，即未經(jīng)專利權(quán)人的同意或許可，任何人不得以生產(chǎn)經(jīng)營目的實施其專利技術(shù)。國家進行專利法立法在鼓勵、保護發(fā)明創(chuàng)造人的創(chuàng)造積極性的同時，更重要的目的是推動發(fā)明創(chuàng)造的應(yīng)用，提高創(chuàng)新能力，促進科學(xué)技術(shù)進步和經(jīng)濟社會發(fā)展。專利權(quán)是一種壟斷權(quán)，這種壟斷權(quán)是以犧牲社會公眾對專利技術(shù)自由使用為代價的。為了平衡專利權(quán)人與國家、社會以及專利產(chǎn)品所有人之間的利益，促進專利技術(shù)和專利產(chǎn)品在全社會中的利用和流通，很多國家對專利權(quán)人的權(quán)利設(shè)置了不同程度的限制。英國采用默示許可（implied license）理論來對專利權(quán)進行限制，美國卻綜合運用首次銷售窮竭原則（first sale exhaustion）和默示許可（impliedlicense）理論對專利權(quán)進行限制，而德國主要運用專利權(quán)用盡原則，在實踐中也不排除適用默示許可理論來運作。 我國對專利權(quán)進行限制的制度吸取了德國經(jīng)驗，卻沒有完全借用德國模式�，F(xiàn)行《專利法》第六十九條具體列舉五種不視為侵犯專利權(quán)的行為，對專利權(quán)的效力進行了限制，其中第一種不侵權(quán)行為被稱為專利權(quán)用盡原則。專利權(quán)用盡原則的理論基礎(chǔ)主要是“默示許可理論”和“專利權(quán)用盡理論”，我國只采用了“專利權(quán)用盡理論”--專利權(quán)用盡原則是對專利權(quán)的一種本質(zhì)性的限定，，不論是否存在其它的限制性條件，都不能排除該原則的適用。隨著我國科學(xué)技術(shù)的不斷提高，知識產(chǎn)權(quán)保護意識也越來越強，法律實踐也逐漸注入新鮮的元素，由于現(xiàn)行專利法沒有明確規(guī)定關(guān)于方法專利及獲得強制許可后售出的專利產(chǎn)品或者依照專利方法直接獲得的產(chǎn)品是否適用專利權(quán)用盡原則，讓我國司法實踐無法可依。 本文正文分為三個部分： 第一章主要是敘述我國專利權(quán)用盡原則的適用現(xiàn)狀。本章對專利權(quán)用盡的概念、我國關(guān)于該原則立法上的發(fā)展，專利權(quán)用盡原則的理論基礎(chǔ)及專利權(quán)用盡原則的適用做了詳細描述，并提出了我國專利權(quán)用盡原則在適用中出現(xiàn)的問題。 第二章主要是對專利權(quán)用盡原則的適用分析。本章以美國的兩個判例為例分析方法專利適用專利權(quán)用盡原則的必要性，最后以歐盟的一個關(guān)于強制許可適用專利權(quán)用盡原則的案例來引出我國學(xué)者對其的態(tài)度。 第三章是筆者針對我國立法和司法的缺陷所提出的完善我國專利權(quán)用盡原則規(guī)定的建議。建議借鑒國外立法和司法實踐經(jīng)驗。
[Abstract]:Patent technology is the crystallization of human intelligence, especially creativity. In order to respect and encourage the intellectual achievements of inventives and creators, the laws of various countries have given the invention-creators a certain right-patent rights, in order to respect and encourage the intellectual achievements of invention-creators. Without the consent or permission of the patentee, no one shall carry out his patented technology for the purpose of production and business. The more important purpose of the patent law legislation is to promote the application of invention and creation, improve the ability of innovation, and promote the progress of science and technology and the development of economy and society, while encouraging and protecting the initiative of invention and creation. Patent right is a kind of monopoly right, which is at the expense of the public to use patent technology freely. In order to balance the interests between the patentee and the state, the society and the owner of patent products, and to promote the utilization and circulation of patent technology and patent products in the whole society, many countries have set restrictions on the rights of patentees to varying degrees. The United Kingdom uses the theory of implied license (implied license) to restrict patent rights, while the United States uses the principle of exhaustion of first sale (first sale exhaustion) and the theory of implied license (impliedlicense) to restrict patent rights, while Germany mainly uses the principle of patent exhaustion. In practice, also does not rule out the application of implied licensing theory to operate. The system of restricting patent rights in our country draws on German experience, but does not borrow German model completely. Article 69 of the current Patent Law specifically lists five acts which are not regarded as infringement of the patent right and limits the validity of the patent right. The first kind of non-infringement act is called the principle of patent exhaustion. The theoretical basis of the principle of patent exhaustion is mainly "implied license theory" and "patent exhaustion theory". China only adopts "patent exhaustion theory"-the principle of patent exhaustion is a kind of essential limitation to patent right. Whether or not other restrictive conditions exist, the application of the principle cannot be ruled out. With the continuous improvement of science and technology in our country, the consciousness of intellectual property protection is becoming stronger and stronger, and the legal practice is gradually infusing fresh elements. Due to the fact that the current patent law does not clearly stipulate whether the principle of patent exhaustion is applicable to the method patent and the patented product sold after obtaining the compulsory license or the product obtained directly according to the patent method, the judicial practice in our country cannot be followed. This paper is divided into three parts: the first chapter mainly describes the application of the patent exhaustion principle in China. This chapter gives a detailed description of the concept of patent exhaustion, the legislative development of this principle, the theoretical basis of the principle of patent exhaustion and the application of the principle of patent exhaustion. And put forward the problem of patent exhaustion principle in our country. The second chapter mainly analyzes the application of patent exhaustion principle. This chapter takes two American cases as an example to analyze the necessity of patent application of the principle of patent exhaustion. Finally, this chapter draws the attitude of Chinese scholars on the application of the principle of patent exhaustion in a case of compulsory licensing in the European Union. The third chapter is the author's suggestion to perfect the principle of patent exhaustion in view of the defects of our legislation and judicature. It is suggested that foreign legislative and judicial practice should be used for reference.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：華東政法大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2014
【分類號】：D923.42
本文編號：2287819
[Abstract]:Patent technology is the crystallization of human intelligence, especially creativity. In order to respect and encourage the intellectual achievements of inventives and creators, the laws of various countries have given the invention-creators a certain right-patent rights, in order to respect and encourage the intellectual achievements of invention-creators. Without the consent or permission of the patentee, no one shall carry out his patented technology for the purpose of production and business. The more important purpose of the patent law legislation is to promote the application of invention and creation, improve the ability of innovation, and promote the progress of science and technology and the development of economy and society, while encouraging and protecting the initiative of invention and creation. Patent right is a kind of monopoly right, which is at the expense of the public to use patent technology freely. In order to balance the interests between the patentee and the state, the society and the owner of patent products, and to promote the utilization and circulation of patent technology and patent products in the whole society, many countries have set restrictions on the rights of patentees to varying degrees. The United Kingdom uses the theory of implied license (implied license) to restrict patent rights, while the United States uses the principle of exhaustion of first sale (first sale exhaustion) and the theory of implied license (impliedlicense) to restrict patent rights, while Germany mainly uses the principle of patent exhaustion. In practice, also does not rule out the application of implied licensing theory to operate. The system of restricting patent rights in our country draws on German experience, but does not borrow German model completely. Article 69 of the current Patent Law specifically lists five acts which are not regarded as infringement of the patent right and limits the validity of the patent right. The first kind of non-infringement act is called the principle of patent exhaustion. The theoretical basis of the principle of patent exhaustion is mainly "implied license theory" and "patent exhaustion theory". China only adopts "patent exhaustion theory"-the principle of patent exhaustion is a kind of essential limitation to patent right. Whether or not other restrictive conditions exist, the application of the principle cannot be ruled out. With the continuous improvement of science and technology in our country, the consciousness of intellectual property protection is becoming stronger and stronger, and the legal practice is gradually infusing fresh elements. Due to the fact that the current patent law does not clearly stipulate whether the principle of patent exhaustion is applicable to the method patent and the patented product sold after obtaining the compulsory license or the product obtained directly according to the patent method, the judicial practice in our country cannot be followed. This paper is divided into three parts: the first chapter mainly describes the application of the patent exhaustion principle in China. This chapter gives a detailed description of the concept of patent exhaustion, the legislative development of this principle, the theoretical basis of the principle of patent exhaustion and the application of the principle of patent exhaustion. And put forward the problem of patent exhaustion principle in our country. The second chapter mainly analyzes the application of patent exhaustion principle. This chapter takes two American cases as an example to analyze the necessity of patent application of the principle of patent exhaustion. Finally, this chapter draws the attitude of Chinese scholars on the application of the principle of patent exhaustion in a case of compulsory licensing in the European Union. The third chapter is the author's suggestion to perfect the principle of patent exhaustion in view of the defects of our legislation and judicature. It is suggested that foreign legislative and judicial practice should be used for reference.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：華東政法大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2014
【分類號】：D923.42
【參考文獻】
相關(guān)期刊論文 前9條
1 吳漢東;法哲學(xué)家對知識產(chǎn)權(quán)法的哲學(xué)解讀[J];法商研究;2003年05期
2 楊紅軍;趙加兵;;專利權(quán)權(quán)利用盡原則研究[J];公民與法(法學(xué)版);2011年07期
3 費艷穎;楊超;;論專利權(quán)之權(quán)利用盡原則——以2004年DVD專利費糾紛案為例[J];哈爾濱工業(yè)大學(xué)學(xué)報(社會科學(xué)版);2007年02期
4 任軍民;;我國專利權(quán)權(quán)利用盡原則的理論體系[J];法學(xué)研究;2006年06期
5 田明;外觀設(shè)計專利侵權(quán)中的幾個法律問題——從一件外觀設(shè)計專利侵權(quán)糾紛案談起[J];知識產(chǎn)權(quán);2004年02期
6 張玲;;專利產(chǎn)品的修理與專利侵權(quán)問題探討——從日本再生墨盒案談起[J];知識產(chǎn)權(quán);2007年03期
7 萬琦;;美國專利權(quán)用盡原則規(guī)范屬性之辨析[J];知識產(chǎn)權(quán);2012年03期
8 張強;劉正;;我國適應(yīng)專利權(quán)窮竭原則及構(gòu)想[J];行政與法;2013年05期
9 石必勝;;專利權(quán)用盡視角下專利產(chǎn)品修理與再造的區(qū)分[J];知識產(chǎn)權(quán);2013年06期
本文編號：2287819
本文鏈接：http://sikaile.net/falvlunwen/zhishichanquanfa/2287819.html
最近更新
教材專著
