本文關(guān)鍵詞： 專利 等同侵權(quán) 侵權(quán)標(biāo)準(zhǔn) 專利侵權(quán)　出處：《湖南大學(xué)》2016年博士論文　論文類型：學(xué)位論文

【摘要】：等同侵權(quán)的判斷原則已經(jīng)為世界各國(guó)所廣泛承認(rèn),但如何結(jié)合具體行業(yè)技術(shù)的特點(diǎn)制定出等同侵權(quán)的客觀認(rèn)定標(biāo)準(zhǔn),仍是一個(gè)未能妥善解決的難題。等同原則起源于美國(guó),并且在歐美日等諸多國(guó)家得到廣泛運(yùn)用。美國(guó)的等同侵權(quán)理論及具體判定方法是在司法實(shí)踐過程中逐步確立的。Mur Phy案確立了“功能-方式-效果”三一致標(biāo)準(zhǔn),Hilton案明確了“全部技術(shù)特征等同”的比較方法。等同原則的限制包括:禁止反悔原則、捐獻(xiàn)規(guī)則、現(xiàn)有技術(shù)抗辯、反向等同原則等。日本“滾珠花鍵軸承案”肯定了等同原則,提出了等同原則的五個(gè)構(gòu)成要件:非本質(zhì)部分、置換可能性、置換容易性、非公知技術(shù)和特別事由(禁止反悔)。德國(guó)的等同原則采用目的解釋論,借助Formstein案確立了等同原則,包括積極要件和消極要件。我國(guó)通過司法解釋確立了等同原則的客觀標(biāo)準(zhǔn)、主觀標(biāo)準(zhǔn)和逐個(gè)技術(shù)特征比較規(guī)則,但與域外相關(guān)制度相比,我國(guó)的等同原則仍然存在缺乏系統(tǒng)性等問題。專利等同侵權(quán)判定模式包括比較對(duì)象、判定方法、等同時(shí)間三個(gè)方面,在比較對(duì)象方面我國(guó)有必要通過立法形式引入逆等同原則。在判定方法方面,包括“功能、方式、效果三部測(cè)試法”、非實(shí)質(zhì)性差異測(cè)試法以及顯而易見性測(cè)試法。時(shí)間方面各個(gè)國(guó)家的判定各有不同。我國(guó)的等同原則在時(shí)間標(biāo)準(zhǔn)方面,應(yīng)采用侵權(quán)行為發(fā)生日;在范圍標(biāo)準(zhǔn)方面,應(yīng)對(duì)開創(chuàng)性發(fā)明和改良性發(fā)明給予不同的保護(hù)范圍要件待遇,對(duì)外觀設(shè)計(jì)侵權(quán)不適用等同原則。在程序體系方面,應(yīng)建立統(tǒng)一、高效的專利審判制度,嚴(yán)格的專利行政審批程序和法定、專業(yè)的鑒定機(jī)構(gòu)。在排除體系方面,應(yīng)納入主觀排除和客觀排除制度。涉及等同原則中的主要技術(shù)領(lǐng)域有:機(jī)械類發(fā)明、電學(xué)類發(fā)明、化學(xué)類發(fā)明、帶有計(jì)算機(jī)程序的發(fā)明。在等同侵權(quán)的認(rèn)定過程中,對(duì)機(jī)械類發(fā)明應(yīng)當(dāng)重點(diǎn)考察機(jī)械的組成部件、部件的位置及連接關(guān)系等方面。在電學(xué)領(lǐng)域,更多地運(yùn)用了功能性權(quán)利要求。創(chuàng)造其性判斷應(yīng)當(dāng)著重考慮電路結(jié)構(gòu)、連接關(guān)系及其功能,還要考慮電路的工作狀態(tài)。對(duì)于化學(xué)類發(fā)明,應(yīng)當(dāng)全面確立以方法界定產(chǎn)品的權(quán)利要求,建立“必要性”的審查規(guī)則,在等同侵權(quán)的認(rèn)定中,對(duì)方法技術(shù)特征采用全部限定法,來明確等同侵權(quán)中的適用規(guī)則。對(duì)帶有計(jì)算機(jī)程序的發(fā)明可以采用功能性限定的方式加以撰寫,以功能限定結(jié)合現(xiàn)有技術(shù)作為等同侵權(quán)判定依據(jù)。在創(chuàng)造性不同的發(fā)明類型中,開拓性發(fā)明,開拓性程度越高則專利權(quán)人所能獲得的保護(hù)范圍就越寬。我國(guó)的法律對(duì)開拓性發(fā)明確定了適當(dāng)寬松的等同保護(hù)范圍,對(duì)其檢驗(yàn)應(yīng)主要交由市場(chǎng)和社會(huì)來進(jìn)行判斷。組合發(fā)明,我國(guó)目前尚未正式法律來確定組合發(fā)明的侵權(quán)判定標(biāo)準(zhǔn),確定等同保護(hù)的范圍可以適當(dāng)從嚴(yán)。在判斷是否屬于“顯而易見”時(shí),美國(guó)法院確立了“Graham測(cè)試標(biāo)準(zhǔn)”的四個(gè)要素我國(guó)可以借鑒。選擇發(fā)明,對(duì)于開放式權(quán)利要求的選擇發(fā)明來說,專利侵權(quán)判定依據(jù)三種不同情況適用不同原則。要素變更的發(fā)明,應(yīng)當(dāng)在“方式——功能——結(jié)果”三要素基本判斷法以及本領(lǐng)域普通技術(shù)人員的判斷的基礎(chǔ)上來進(jìn)行判定。適用等同原則還應(yīng)關(guān)注本領(lǐng)域普通技術(shù)人員為代表的專家證人標(biāo)準(zhǔn)。專利訴訟中涉及到復(fù)雜的專業(yè)技術(shù)問題,有必要依賴專家證人制度對(duì)專業(yè)問題予以澄清和解釋,等同侵權(quán)判定過程中專家證人需要有一定的選擇標(biāo)準(zhǔn),作為行內(nèi)普通技術(shù)人員,“普通”二字對(duì)于不同的技術(shù)領(lǐng)域有不同的含義。普通技術(shù)人員進(jìn)行等同侵權(quán)判定時(shí)也需要遵循一定的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)。其目的在于最終實(shí)現(xiàn)知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)法利益保護(hù)上的平衡,在司法中運(yùn)用等同原則的判斷標(biāo)準(zhǔn)日趨成熟。
[Abstract]:Equivalent infringement judgment principle has been widely accepted all over the world, but how to combine the characteristics of specific industry technology to develop equivalent infringement objective standard, is still a failure to properly solve the problem. The equivalent principle originated in the United States, and has been widely used in Europe and many other countries. The equivalent infringement theory and concrete judgment method is gradually established in the judicial practice in the process of.Mur Phy established "31 function way" by American standards, Hilton case of clear "comparative method is equivalent to all the technical features of the doctrine of equivalents. Limitations include: estoppel principle, donation rules, existing technology defense, reverse equivalent principle. Japan" the ball spline bearing case affirmed the equal principle, puts forward five elements of the doctrine of equivalents: non essential part, the possibility of replacement, easy replacement of non known technology And the special causes (estoppel). The principle of equal Germany by objective interpretation theory, with the aid of the Formstein case established the doctrine of equivalents, including positive factors and negative factors in our country. Through the interpretation of law of objective equivalent principle, subjective standard and technical features one by one compared with the relevant rules, but compared to the same principle in our country there are still problems is lack of system. The patent of equivalent infringement mode includes the comparison object, judgment method, equivalent to the three aspects of time, in object it is necessary to pass legislation into inverse doctrine. In determining methods, including the function, effect of three test method, non a substantial difference between the test method and test method to determine. Obviously each country has different time. The doctrine of equivalents in standard time, the tort of hair In the scope of the standard, birthday; deal with the pioneering invention and improvement of invention given the scope of protection of elements of different treatment, the appearance of design infringement not to apply the doctrine of equivalents. In the system, we should establish a unified and efficient patent trial system, strict patent administrative examination and approval procedures and the legal, professional accreditation bodies in the exclusion. System, should be included in the subjective and objective rule removal system. The main technical field relates to equivalent principle are: mechanical invention, electrical invention, chemical invention, with a computer program of the invention. In the process of recognition and equivalent infringement in the mechanical components of mechanical invention shall be inspected, the location of units and the connection relationship. In the field of electricity, with more functional claims. The judge should consider creating circuit structure, connection and function, but also consider the power The road working condition. For the chemical class invention should be fully established by the method of defining the right product requirements, the establishment of the "necessity" of censorship rules, equivalent infringement, using all defined method on technical features of the method, to clarify the applicable rules of tort. The equivalent of a computer program of the invention can be used function limited way of writing, to limit the current technology as the basis of equivalent infringement. In different types of creative invention, pioneering pioneering invention, the scope of protection of the higher degree of the patentee can get more wide. The law of our country to determine the appropriate loose equivalent protection scope of development of the invention, the inspection should be mainly by the market and society to judge. Combination of invention, our country has not yet formally law to determine the infringement standard combination method, to determine the equivalent The scope of protection can be strictly. In determining whether to belong to "obviously", the United States Court established the "four elements of the Graham test standard" can be used for reference in China. Choose the invention, for invention open claims for patent infringement according to three different situations to apply different principles. Elements change invention. It should be in the "- function - the result" three elements of basic judgment based method and ordinary technical personnel in the field to judge. Judge the application of the doctrine of equivalents should also pay attention to ordinary technical personnel in the field as the representative of the expert witness professional standards. Complex technical issues involved in patent litigation, it is necessary to rely on expert witness system clarification and explanation of professional issues, equivalent infringement in the process of expert witness to selection criteria, as ordinary people in technology Member of "ordinary" two words have different meanings in different areas of technology. The common technical personnel of equivalent infringement also need to follow certain standards. Its purpose is to realize the interests of intellectual property protection on the balance in the judicial application of judgment standard of the doctrine of equivalents is becoming mature.

【學(xué)位授予單位】：湖南大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：博士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2016
【分類號(hào)】：D923.42
，

本文編號(hào)：1469134