方法专利拆分实施行为侵权认定研究

发布时间：2018-04-06 21:27

本文选题：方法专利　切入点：拆分实施　出处：《浙江师范大学》2016年硕士论文

【摘要】：方法专利拆分实施行为是由数行为人分别实施方法专利各步骤,任一行为人皆未完成全部专利步骤,但数行为人行为整体包含全部专利步骤的行为。该行为形态多见于计算机软件专利和商业方法专利等纯方法专利中,由于其形态有别于一般专利侵权行为,而其构成侵权的认定规则亦不明确,在理论研究及法律适用上均存在争议,严重影响了专利制度功能的实现,因而在美国学界引发了大量的讨论。我国专利侵权认定逻辑虽与美国相似,但缺少对方法专利拆分实施行为的相关侵权认定规则,美国方法专利拆分实施行为侵权认定规则的研究成果对我国处理这一问题有很强的借鉴意义。在我国的专利制度中将美国现行的控制或指挥规则本土化将能进一步厘清专利领域内直接侵权与共同侵权的界限,在纷繁复杂的技术变迁中严守全面覆盖原则这一底线,避免不当扩张专利权范围的同时也确保权利人正当利益的实现,以达到专利权人与一般公众间的利益均衡。论文主要分为三个部分：第一部分指出方法专利拆分实施行为侵权认定面临的困境。专利权利要求的撰写逻辑与方法专利拆分实施行为自身的特点决定了,方法专利拆分实施行为的侵权认定是一个较为特殊的侵权法问题。而方法专利拆分实施行为的侵权认定规则之所以会成为一个理论与实践难点,宏观层面的问题在于方法专利拆分实施行为中直接侵权认定困难。方法专利拆分实施这一可能构成侵权的行为形态冲击了传统方法专利侵权认定理论,传统方法专利直接侵权认定强调全面覆盖原则的适用而并未明确表明行为人数量；但在涉及数行为人拆分实施一项方法专利时,又有单一主体原则这一隐形要求,从而造成全面覆盖原则难以直接适用。而共同侵权规则和间接侵权规则的适用又会引发专利侵权认定逻辑混乱,也无法有效地解决方法专利拆分实施行为情境下直接侵权认定的难题。因此,需要重新思考方法专利拆分实施行为侵权认定规则的构建方向。第二部分主要介绍方法专利拆分实施行为侵权认定规则的演进历程及其启示。关于方法专利拆分实施行为的研究早已在美国建立,并取得了丰富的成果。经过早期的讨论之后,构成侵权的方法专利拆分实施行为被定性为直接侵权,而不是共同侵权,即便它包含数个行为人也仅由被告一人承担侵权责任。方法专利拆分实施行为侵权认定的核心在于数行为人间的联结关系,而根据构成侵权的联结关系要求的不同,方法专利拆分实施行为侵权认定规则主要分为代理关系说、某种程度联结关系说、参与结合行为说和控制或指挥规则。控制或指挥规则是以上规则中较为妥实的侵权认定规则,但方法专利拆分实施行为侵权认定规则的发展的主要动力来源于案件,规则的提出和解释多是为了处理案件的现实需要,往往缺少系统的讨论。在这样的背景下控制或指挥规则也存在逻辑矛盾、内容不明确的缺陷,并对后续案件的处理产生了不良影响。针对这一问题,各级法院在实践中取得的控制或指挥规则的新发展可为进一步完善控制或指挥规则提供指导。第三部分探讨了我国方法专利拆分实施行为侵权认定的模式存在的问题,并借鉴控制或指挥规则提出具体的规则完善建议。具体到我国专利制度和侵权法制度,我国在进行方法专利拆分实施行为侵权认定时存在的问题首先是我国并无针对方法专利拆分实施行为侵权认定的专门规则,其次是实务中一般将拆分实施作为共同侵权处理。然而这样的做法不仅忽视了专利侵权的认定逻辑,且混淆了专利直接侵权与共同侵权的界限,并不恰当亦不公平。我国应借鉴美国引入控制或指挥规则,并从美国司法界取得的经验教训中获得启示对该规则进行适当的调整以实现专利权人利益和公共利益的平衡,并完善与侵权认定规则有关的制度,保障规则发挥效用。
[Abstract]:The implementation of split method patent acts by acts were the implementation of each step method patent, any behavior person did not complete patent behavior but the number of steps, including all the steps of the whole patent behavior. The behavior in the form of computer software patent and the patent of business method patent and pure method, because of its shape is different from the general patent infringement, and the recognition rules of tort is not clear, in the theoretical research and application of law are controversial, affecting the realization of the function of patent system, thus in American academia has caused a lot of discussion. China's patent infringement is logic similar to those in the United States, but the lack of implementation of tort behavior the method of patent resolution that the rules of American research method patent infringement act split rules have great significance for China to deal with this problem In the patent system of our country the current control or command will be able to further clarify the rules of localization in the field of patent direct infringement and joint infringement boundaries, in technology changes in the complex to the principle of comprehensive coverage of the bottom line at the same time, to avoid improper expansion of patent scope is to ensure the realization of the legitimate interests of the right people. In order to achieve the balance of interests between the patentee and the general public. This thesis is divided into three parts: the first part points out the method of patent infringement behavior split implementation difficulties. Write the logic and method of patent resolution for patent rights implementation features decide their own behavior, infringement of Patent Act is a split a special tort law. And the method of patent infringement behavior of the implementation of resolution rules has become a difficulty in theory and practice, macro The level of the problem is the method patent direct infringement behavior in the implementation of resolution to recognize the difficulty. The implementation of this resolution method patent infringement may constitute a form of the impact of the traditional method of patent infringement theory, the traditional method of patent infringement is directly emphasized the principle of comprehensive coverage and did not explicitly indicate that the number of people involved in the act; but the number of people split the implementation behavior a method of patent, and the principle of the single subject contact, resulting in the principle of comprehensive coverage is difficult to directly apply. For joint tort rules and rules of indirect infringement of patent infringement will lead to confusion of logic, can effectively solve the problem of the implementation of resolution method patent infringement behavior situation directly. Therefore, the need to rethink the implementation of patent infringement behavior method split rule construction direction. The second part mainly introduces the party The evolution of patent infringement act split rules and its enlightenment. Research on the method of patent resolution implementation behavior already established in the United States, and achieved fruitful results. After the early discussions, a method of patent infringement act resolution is defined as the direct infringement, rather than infringement, even if it contains a number of the behavior of people is only the first defendant shall assume the tort liability. The patent infringement behavior of the implementation of the core resolution is the link between the number of human behavior, and according to the requirements of the different links of infringement, patent infringement behavior method resolution implementation rules mainly divided into agency relation, some degree of connection that participates in the binding behavior and control or command or command control rules. The rules are right infringement rules of the above rules, but the split method patent implementation Acts of infringement of the main power source of the development of the rule in the case, the proposed rule and explain the realistic need to deal with cases, often lack of systematic discussion. Control or command rules in this context are logical contradiction, defects of the content is not clear, adverse effects and the subsequent handling of the case. To solve this problem, the new development of the courts at all levels have achieved in practice control or command rules can provide guidance for the further improvement of control or command rules. The third part discusses the existing problems of the infringement behavior model of patent in China and reference resolution method, control or command rules put forward specific suggestions to the specific rules. China's patent system and tort law system, our country exists in the implementation of the act of infringement of patent method resolution. The problem is firstly in China for no special method The resolution of the implementation of specialized rules of conduct for infringement, followed by general practice will split the implementation of joint tort. However, as this approach not only ignored the patent infringement cognizance logic, and the confusion of the patent direct infringement and joint infringement boundaries, inappropriate and unfair. China should learn from the United States into the control command or rules get inspiration, make appropriate adjustments to the rules to achieve the interests of the patentee and the public interest balance lessons learned from the United States and the judiciary, and perfect the related infringement rule system, security rules play a role.

【学位授予单位】：浙江师范大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2016
【分类号】：D923.42

【相似文献】