创新视域下专利间接侵权规则的体系建构与内容优化

摘要
图/表
参考文献
相关文章 (15)

全文: PDF (956 KB) HTML (1 KB)
输出: BibTeX | EndNote (RIS)

摘要专利侵权的全面覆盖原则为行为人侵害专利权而不担责留下规制缺口,专利间接侵权责任规则有助于打破全面覆盖原则对行为人责任追究的困局。近年来,基于司法实践的迫切需要,我国在司法解释层面确认了专利间接侵权规则。本文围绕专利间接侵权规则在体系性和可操作性等方面的问题展开,认为亟须对其加以制度重构和规则优化:一方面专利间接侵权的架构背景应当脱离共同侵权理论框架,使专利间接侵权成为独立的侵权类型,既有归责体系的二元化制度设计路径对于全面规制间接侵权行为更为有利,应当坚持采用引诱-帮助侵权两分的模式;另一方面应当优化专利帮助侵权和教唆侵权的规则内容,形成完备的专利间接侵权规制体系,以达到专利间接侵权制度的法律和政策目标。

	服务

	把本文推荐给朋友
	加入我的书架
	加入引用管理器
	E-mail Alert
	RSS
	作者相关文章
	彭官棋

关键词 ：专利侵权, 教唆侵权, 帮助侵权, 共同侵权, 技术创新

Abstract：All elements rules of traditional patent infringement leaves a regulatory gap for the perpetrator to infringe patent rights without responsibility.The indirect patent infringement liability rule helps to break the dilemma of all elements rules of accountability.In recent years,based on the urgent needs of judicial practice,our country has confirmed the indirect patent infringement rules at the level of judicial interpretation.The existing indirect patent infringement rules have many problems in terms of system and operability,and it's urgent to restructure the system and optimize the rules.On the one hand,the structural background of indirect patent infringement should be separated from the theoretical framework of joint infringement,so that indirect patent infringement become an independent type of infringement.At the same time,the dual system design path of the existing imputation system is more conducive to the comprehensive regulation of indirect infringements,and it is necessary to adhere to the inducement-contributory infringement dichotomy model.On the other hand,it should optimize patents to contributory infringement and inducement infringement.The content of the rules shall form a complete regulatory system for indirect patent infringement to achieve the legal and policy goals of the indirect patent infringement system.

Key words： Patent infringement Inducement infringement Contributory infringement Joint infringement Technological innovation

收稿日期: 2020-07-31

PACS:

DF523.2

基金资助:国家社会科学基金重大项目 “数字网络空间的知识产权治理体系研究” (19ZDA164)。

作者简介: 彭官棋 (1990-),男,福建宁德人,上海交通大学博士研究生,研究方向为知识产权法,科技法。

引用本文:

彭官棋. 创新视域下专利间接侵权规则的体系建构与内容优化[J]. 中国科技论坛, 2021(4): 118-127.
Peng Guanqi. System Construction and Content Optimization of Indirect Patent Infringement Rules from the Perspective of Innovation. , 2021(4): 118-127.

链接本文:

http://www.zgkjlt.org.cn/CN/Y2021/I4/118

[1]MARK A L,PETER S M,ROBERT P M.Intellectual property in the new technological age[M].New York:Aspen Publishers,2010.
[2]HOLMES v.WALLACE,Case No:407 F.Supp.493 (M.D.Ala.1976)[EB/OL].[2020-12-1].https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp/407/493/2280841/.
[3]Leeds & Catlin Co.v.Victor Talking Machine Co.,Case No:213 U.S.325 (1909)[EB/OL].[2020-12-1].https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/213/325/.
[4]国家知识产权局.专利审查指南[M].北京:知识产权出版社,2010.
[5]闫文军.专利权的保护范围[M].北京:法律出版社,2018.
[6]太原重型机器厂与太原电子系统工程公司、阳泉煤矿电子设备二厂专利侵权纠纷一审判决书[Z]. (1993)法经初字第27号.
[7]南京特能电子有限公司与南京西普尔科技实业有限公司实用新型专利侵权纠纷一审判决书[Z]. (2015)宁知民初字第27号.
[8]太原重型机器厂与太原电子系统工程公司、阳泉煤矿电子设备二厂专利侵权纠纷二审判决书[Z]. (1993)晋经终字第152号.
[9]吕学忠等与上海航空测控技术研究所等专利侵权纠一审判决书[Z]. (2003)沪一中民五 (知)初字第212号.
[10]佛山市南海区罗村联和联兴轻钢龙骨厂等与广州金鹏实业有限公司发明专利侵权纠纷二审判决书[Z]. (2005)桂民三终字第5号.
[11]魏征.我国不应该有专利间接侵权理论的应用空间[J].中国专利与商标,2008 (1):37-42.
[12]王凌红.我国专利间接侵权制度的立法方向——以利益平衡为视点求解《专利法》第三次修改的未决立法课题[J].电子知识产权,2009 (6):14-18.
[13]何培育,蒋启蒙.回归抑或超越:专利间接侵权与共同侵权理论之辨[J].知识产权,2019 (5):46-57.
[14]吴汉东.专利间接侵权的国际立法动向与中国制度选择[J].现代法学,2020,42 (2):30-45.
[15]宁立志.专利辅助侵权制度中的法度边界之争——美国法例变迁的启示[J].法学评论,2010,28 (5):35-45.
[16]程啸.论意思联络作为共同侵权行为构成要件的意义[J].法学家,2003 (4):94-102.
[17]闫文军,金黎峰.专利间接侵权的比较与适用——兼评2016年最高人民法院司法解释的相关规定[J].知识产权,2016 (7):47-53.
[18]徐媛媛.专利间接侵权制度的辅助侵权一元立法论[J].知识产权,2018 (1):80-83.
[19]张其鉴.我国专利间接侵权立法模式之反思——以评析法释[2016]1号第21条为中心[J].知识产权,2017 (4):35-41.
[20]蔡元臻.论日本专利间接侵权构成要件及其对我国的启示[J].河北法学,2017,35 (1):133-142.
[21]国家知识产权局条法司.外国专利法选译 (上)[M].北京:知识产权出版社,2015.
[22]Aro Mfg.Co.,Inc.v.Convertible Top Co.,Case No:377 U.S.476 (1964)[EB/OL].[2020-12-1].https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/377/476/.
[23]蔡元臻,何星星.美国专利间接侵权主观要件评析[J].知识产权,2017 (09):89-96.
[24]TI Group Automotive Systems v.VDO North America,Case No:62 U.S.P.Q.2d 1599,1601 (D.Del.2002)[EB/OL].[2020-12-1].https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-federal-circuit/1344688.html.
[25]Hewlett-Packard Co.v.Bausch Lomb Inc.,Case No:909 F.2d 1464 (Fed.Cir.1990)[EB/OL].[2020-12-1].https://casetext.com/case/hewlett-packard-co-v-bausch-lomb-inc.
[26]Manville Sales Corp.v.Paramount Systems,Case No:917 F.2d 544 (Fed.Cir.1990)[EB/OL].[2020-12-1]https://casetext.com/case/manville-sales-corp-v-paramount-systems.
[27]Fromberg,Inc.v.Jack W.Thornhill,Case No:315 F.2d 407 (5th Cir.1963)[EB/OL].[2020-12-1].https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/260114/fromberg-inc-v-jack-w-thornhill/.
[28]DSU Medical Corporation v.JMS Co.,Ltd,Case No:471 F.3d 1293 (Fed.Cir.2006)[EB/OL].[2020-12-1].https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/210918/dsu-medical-corporation-v-jms-co-ltd/.
[29]Global-Tech Appliances,Inc.,Et Al.v.SEB S.A,Case No:131 S.Ct.2060 (2011)[EB/OL].[2020-12-1].https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/10pdf/10-6.pdf.
[30]ROGER E S,JOHN R T.Intellectual property:the law of copyrights,patents and trademarks[M].Mason:Thomson West,2003.
[31]Graham Paper Co.v.International Paper Co.,Case No:46 F.2d 881 (8th Cir.1931)[EB/OL].[2020-12-1].https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/46/881/1487349/.
[32]崔国斌.专利法:原理与案例[M].北京:北京大学出版社,2016.