【摘要】：根據(jù)專利的基本原理，專利公開后進入公眾領域，任何人均享有獲取該專利內(nèi)容的權益，作為對價，專利權人獲得了很強的獨占實施權，不當授權的瑕疵專利授權后會對公共利益造成侵害，理應被宣告無效。我國在專利侵權和專利無效實行的是雙軌制，即職權分離主義。國家知識產(chǎn)權局專利復審委員會是唯一受理專利無效的機構，人民法院無權對專利的無效做出宣告，而且人民法院都是基于專利有效前提進行侵權審理的。被告人在專利侵權案件審理中要宣告專利權無效只能向?qū)＠麖蛯徫瘑T會提起，并且根據(jù)受理文件及證據(jù)暫時請求人民法院裁定中止審理案件。2008年《專利法》的第三次修改將“現(xiàn)有技術抗辯”制度正式上升到法律層面進行架構，一定程度上緩解了因提出無效宣告造成的侵權案件審理周期長的問題，被告可以及時擺脫訴累，快速的投入生產(chǎn)經(jīng)營之中。司法解釋對現(xiàn)有技術抗辯的對比方式做出了規(guī)定,但是在現(xiàn)有技術抗辯對比標準的細節(jié)性問題上，司法解釋用詞的模糊性使得該規(guī)定在理論上沒有達成統(tǒng)一認識，在司法判例中也沒有產(chǎn)生執(zhí)行標準。2012年最高法發(fā)布的“澤田公司與格瑞特公司侵犯實用新型專利糾紛”一案采用相同或等同標準判斷現(xiàn)有技術抗辯是否成立，對現(xiàn)有技術抗辯對比標準的研究具有重要的借鑒意義。本文結合該專利糾紛一案，，運用比較研究方法從理論和司法實務角度對現(xiàn)有技術抗辯的對比標準進行應用性研究，以期尋找專利權人和公眾之間的利益平衡點。 本文主要通過四個部分對現(xiàn)有技術抗辯對比標準在專利侵權中的應用進行論述。首先，對“澤田公司與格瑞特公司之間的實用新型專利糾紛一案”的案情進行介紹，了解不同級別法院對本案的司法裁判，明確本案的爭議專利技術特征和當事人之間的訴訟爭議點。進而得出本文爭議的焦點在于采用什么現(xiàn)有技術抗辯對比標準來平衡公共利益與專利權人的權利；其次，介紹國內(nèi)現(xiàn)有技術抗辯對比標準的不同理論觀點，主要觀點有無新穎性標準、明顯近似標準、等同標準、創(chuàng)造性標準等，四種對比標準所包含的范圍是層層擴大的；然后結合對四種觀點和專利侵權領域現(xiàn)有技術抗辯的理解深入闡釋各觀點的合理性與不足之處。再次，借用專利審查領域進行技術對比的新穎性、創(chuàng)造性和專利侵權領域進行技術對比的相同或等同的判斷標準，并結合上文的分析和本人對于專利法及相關司法解釋的思考，闡述關于等同標準所涉及到的問題；最后，對比分析德國、日本、美國的現(xiàn)有技術抗辯，得出三國的現(xiàn)有技術抗辯對比標準是創(chuàng)造性標準；然后對該標準作本土化分析，探討該標準在我國目前的可行性，在此基礎上總結該標準在我國適用的必備因素。
[Abstract]:According to the basic principles of the patent, after the patent has been made public, anyone has the right to acquire the content of the patent. As a counterconsideration, the patentee has obtained a strong monopoly. Improper licensing of defective patents will infringe upon the public interest and should be declared null and void. In our country, patent infringement and patent invalidation are two-track system, that is, power separatism. The Patent Reexamination Board of the State intellectual property Office is the only institution that accepts the invalidation of the patent, and the people's court has no right to declare the invalidation of the patent, and the people's court tries the infringement on the basis of the valid premise of the patent. If the defendant wishes to declare the patent right invalid in the case of patent infringement, he can only file it with the Patent Reexamination Board. The third revision of the Patent Law in 2008 formally raised the "defense of existing technology" system to the legal level to carry out a framework. To some extent, it alleviates the problem of long trial period of tort cases caused by invalid declaration, and the defendant can get rid of the tiredness in time and put into production and operation quickly. The judicial interpretation has made the stipulation to the contrast way of the existing technology defense, but in the detail question of the contrast standard of the existing technology defense, the ambiguity of the judicial interpretation words makes this stipulation have not reached the unified understanding in theory. There is no enforcement standard in judicial precedents. The 2012 Supreme Law case, "the patent dispute between Satoshi and Gretel against utility models," applies the same or equivalent criteria to determine whether the existing technical defences are valid. The research on the contrast standard of existing technology defense has important reference significance. Combined with the patent dispute case, this paper applies the comparative research method to the comparative standard of the existing technical defences from the angle of theory and judicial practice, in order to find the balance of interests between the patentee and the public. This paper mainly discusses the application of the contrast standard of existing technology defense in patent infringement through four parts. First of all, to introduce the case of the utility model patent dispute between Zetan and Gretel, and to understand the judicial decisions of different levels of courts in this case. Clarify the technical features of the dispute patent and the dispute points between the parties. Furthermore, the focus of this paper is to balance the public interest and the patentee's rights by adopting the standard of contrast of the existing technology defense. Secondly, it introduces the different theoretical viewpoints of the contrast standard of the existing technology in China. The main viewpoints are whether the novelty standard, the obvious approximate standard, the equivalent standard, the creative standard and so on. The scope of the four kinds of contrast standards is expanded layer by layer. Then, it explains the rationality and deficiency of the four viewpoints and the existing technology defense in patent infringement field. Thirdly, using the novelty of technology comparison in the field of patent examination, the same or equivalent judgment standard of technical comparison in the field of creativity and patent infringement, and combining with the above analysis and my own thinking on patent law and related judicial interpretation, (B) to elaborate on the issues involved in the criterion of equivalence; Finally, by comparing and analyzing the existing technology defense of Germany, Japan and the United States, it is concluded that the contrast standard of the existing technology defense of the three countries is the creative standard. Then the localization analysis of the standard is made, and the feasibility of the standard in our country is discussed, and the necessary factors for the application of the standard in our country are summarized.
【學位授予單位】：西南政法大學
【學位級別】：碩士
【學位授予年份】：2014
【分類號】：D923.42

【參考文獻】

相關期刊論文 前10條

1 楊志敏;關于“公知技術抗辯”若干問題的研究——從中、德、日三國判例與學說的對比角度[J];比較法研究;2003年02期

2 馮曉青;;知識產(chǎn)權法目的與利益平衡關系的實證分析——以美國《憲法》知識產(chǎn)權條款為例[J];北京科技大學學報(社會科學版);2008年03期

3 雷艷珍;楊玉新;;美國專利法中的現(xiàn)有技術抗辯[J];電子知識產(chǎn)權;2010年03期

4 陳榮飛;;論現(xiàn)有技術抗辯在專利侵權訴訟中的適用[J];中國發(fā)明與專利;2012年01期

5 翟文峰;張炳生;;現(xiàn)有技術抗辯的對比標準[J];中國礦業(yè)大學學報(社會科學版);2010年03期

6 吳勝華;;等同原則的適用及限制——以規(guī)制專利權濫用為視角[J];科技與法律;2010年03期

7 張中華;;專利實務中的現(xiàn)有技術抗辯[J];江蘇科技信息;2013年01期

8 譚筱清;已有公知技術抗辯原則在專利侵權訴訟中的運用[J];人民司法;2002年08期

9 雷艷珍;;中美現(xiàn)有技術抗辯制度之比較[J];河南省政法管理干部學院學報;2010年01期

10 孫振嘉;孫放;張曉輝;;中日《專利法》比較研究[J];情報科學;2012年11期

本文編號：2332291