论专利停止侵权救济的限制

发布时间：2018-01-14 08:13

本文关键词：论专利停止侵权救济的限制　出处：《华东政法大学》2015年硕士论文　论文类型：学位论文

【摘要】：停止侵权是我国专利侵权救济的重要手段之一。在我国司法实践中,法院一旦认定专利侵权后,基本都会判决停止侵权。但由此也产生了一系列的问题:侵权人在被判决停止侵权后,其前期投入的大量资金和精力都有可能无法获得回报,侵权人有可能因此而遭受比损害赔偿更严重的惩罚,包括失去客户和市场,甚至破产,更甚者,判决停止侵权会损害公共利益。创设专利制度的目的在于鼓励创新。当今科技发展迅速,如何在专利侵权纠纷中更好实现各方利益平衡,合理适用停止侵权救济不容忽视。专利权人、专利侵权人、专利产品的使用者各方利益的平衡,以及对安全、健康等公共利益的影响,都是在适用停止侵权救济时需要考量的因素。专利停止侵权救济的完善对我国知识产权制度的改革有着重要的意义。与发达国家相比,我国专利制度起步较晚。停止侵权救济与永久禁令救济隶属不同法系,但在功能和性质上都有诸多相似之处。因此永久禁令救济的经验,对于完善我国停止侵权救济有着重要意义。美国永久禁令救济已经历过一个漫长的发展过程,也曾陷入因专利权的滥用而阻碍技术进步的困境。美国在e Bay案后,确立以衡平法四要素原则作为永久禁令救济的适用法则。我国目前司法实践中仍将停止侵权作为专利侵权救济的一般规则,违背了停止侵权救济的本质和立法初衷,丧失了停止侵权救济的预防性和补充性。近年来我国对专利侵权中是否适用停止侵权的态度有所转变。我国法规中虽未明确引入美国永久禁令救济的四要素原则,但事实上四要素原则在我国专利停止侵权救济的相关司法解释和个案中已经有所体现。本文通过对美国永久禁令四要素原则以及中国可以不判决停止侵权的考量因素进行对比分析,得出结论:(1)美国永久禁令四要素中原告遭受难以弥补的损害以及金钱损害赔偿不能弥补原告损失这两个原则都在我国诉前停止有关行为的规定中有所体现,但是并非判决停止侵权的必要考量因素。相对于判决停止侵权,我国对诉前停止有关行为持更谨慎态度。(2)美国永久禁令四要素中公共利益也是判决停止侵权需要考虑的因素。公共利益无明确完整的定义,但是健康、安全、竞争、消费者福利等都是拒发永久禁令和不判决停止侵权的因素。(3)我国规定的当事人利益严重失衡情形是美国永久禁令四要素中利益平衡原则的一种体现。(4)我国将判决难以执行,权利人长期放任侵权、怠于行使权利这两种情形作为可以不判决停止侵权的指引。本文通过对美国的经验进行总结,对停止侵权的性质、专利停止侵权救济限制的合理性和必要性进行分析,将美国永久禁令四要素和中国可以不判决停止侵权的考量因素进行对比,从而探讨专利停止侵权救济限制的具体方案。本文除导言与结论外共由四章组成。第一章:我国专利停止侵权救济的现状及存在的问题。分析停止侵权的性质、总结我国专利停止侵权救济制度的立法基础、司法实践现状,并指出存在的问题。第二章:专利停止侵权救济限制的依据及域外考察。分析专利停止侵权救济限制的合理性和必要性,并总结美国永久禁令救济中我国可借鉴的经验。第三章:专利停止侵权救济的限制情形分析。分析我国不判决停止侵权个案的考量因素,并与美国永久禁令四要素进行对比分析。第四章:对我国专利停止侵权救济限制的建议。讨论我国专利停止侵权救济限制适用的具体方案。
[Abstract]:Stop infringement is one of the important means of Patent Infringement Remedy in China. In China's judicial practice, the court once a patent infringement, the basic judgment will stop infringement. But it also brings a series of problems: the infringer was sentenced to stop infringement, a lot of money and energy initial investments are likely to unable to return to the infringer may suffer damages more than serious punishment, including the loss of customers and markets, or even bankruptcy, what is more, the decision to stop infringement will damage the public interests. The creation of the patent system is to encourage innovation. The rapid development of science and technology, how to better achieve the balance of interests in patent infringement disputes in the reasonable application of stop infringement relief can not be ignored. The patentee, patent infringement, patent product users to balance the interests of all parties, as well as safety, health and other public interests. Ring, are all factors in the application of stop infringement relief need to be considered. There is important significance to improve the patent infringement relief to stop China's intellectual property system reform. Compared with the developed countries, a late start of China's patent system. Stop infringement relief and permanent injunctive relief under different legal systems, but there are many similarities in the function and properties. Therefore the permanent injunctive relief experience for perfecting the stop infringement relief has important significance. The United States permanent injunctive relief has experienced a long development process, has plunged into because of the abuse of patent right and impede technological progress dilemma. The United States in the e Bay case, to establish equity method four principles as applicable law of permanent injunctive relief. In China's current judicial practice will stop the general rules of tort as remedies for patent infringement, contrary to the essence and stop infringement relief The original intention of legislation, lost stop preventive and supplementary tort relief. In recent years in China about the application of patent infringement to stop infringement attitude change. The principle of the four elements of our laws and regulations did not explicitly introduce the United States permanent injunctive relief, but the four principles in the relevant judicial interpretation and case of patent in China stop the infringement relief has been reflected. Based on the four principles and China permanent ban can not stop infringement judgment considerations for comparative analysis, draw the conclusion: (1) the provisions of the United States permanent ban of four elements of the plaintiff suffered irreparable damage and money damages cannot make up for the two principles of the plaintiff loss stop the act in our country before litigation reflected, but is not necessary to consider the decision to stop infringement factors. With respect to the decision to stop infringement, China on v. Before the stop of the relevant act more cautious attitude. (2) the public interest is the decision to stop infringement factors need to be considered the permanent ban of four elements in the public interest. No clear definition, but the health, safety, competition, consumer welfare is refused a permanent injunction and the decision to stop infringement factors (3). Our country sets the interests of a serious imbalance situation is a reflection of the principle of balance of interests the United States Permanent Injunction in the four elements. (4) China's judgment is difficult to perform the rights of people, long-term indulgence is indolent in exercising this right infringement, two cases can not stop infringement judgment as guidelines. This summary of the United States experience, to stop the infringement, stop the rationality and necessity of patent infringement relief limit analysis, will be the United States permanent ban of four elements and Chinese can not stop the infringement judgment factors for consideration Than, so as to explore the concrete scheme of patent infringement relief limit stop. This article except for the introduction and conclusion is divided into four chapters. The first chapter: China's patent infringement relief situation and problems analysis. To stop the infringing nature, summed up China's patent infringement relief system to stop the legislative basis, the judicial practice of the status quo, and pointed out the existing problems. The second chapter: patent infringement relief and stop according to the extraterritorial investigation restrictions. Analysis of the patent to stop the rationality and necessity of tort relief restrictions, and summarizes the United States Permanent Injunction remedy in China can learn from the experience. The third chapter: patent infringement relief stop limit situation analysis of China's decision factors stop infringement case, and a permanent ban of four elements compared with the United States. The fourth chapter: analysis of China's patent infringement relief stop limit suggestions. The discussion of China's patent infringement save stop The specific scheme for the application of economic restrictions.

【学位授予单位】：华东政法大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2015
【分类号】：D923.42

【相似文献】