漏洞补充的实践运作及其限度——以指导性案例20号为分析对象

发布时间：2018-04-16 21:41

本文选题：法律方法 + 漏洞补充　；参考：《社会科学》2017年01期

【摘要】：宏观法律体系的完善并不意味着个案中法律漏洞的消失。作为来自本土司法实践中的优秀案件,指导性案例能够为法官进行有效的漏洞补充提供重要启发。在指导性案例20号中,专利法的相关法律规定都没有就核心争议问题做出直接规定,最高人民法院的裁判意见利用了类推和目的性扩张的方法,在本案中实现了对法律漏洞的补充,其结果满足了合法性的底限要求。但是,漏洞补充也面临着诸多风险和困难。指导性案例20号进行漏洞补充后确立的新规则,难以给在临时保护期内的发明专利申请人带来有效救济,难以达到综合利益平衡的实际效果。最高人民法院通过指导性案例的方式展示漏洞补充的实践运作,这一努力仍然是值得肯定的。地方法院应当通过研习指导性案例,充分认识漏洞补充方法的运作及其限度,提升在审判实践中运用该方法的能力与水平。
[Abstract]:The perfection of macro-legal system does not mean the disappearance of legal loopholes in the case.As an excellent case from local judicial practice, instructive cases can provide important inspiration for judges to make effective loophole supplement.In guiding case No. 20, none of the relevant legal provisions of the Patent Law directly regulated the core dispute, and the Supreme people's Court's judgment made use of the methods of analogy and purposeful expansion.In this case, the legal loophole is supplemented, and the result meets the minimum requirement of legality.However, the loophole supplement also faces many risks and difficulties.It is difficult to bring effective relief to the applicant for invention patent during the period of temporary protection and to achieve the practical effect of balancing the comprehensive interests because of the new rules established after the loophole supplement in the guiding case No. 20.The Supreme people's Court's efforts to show the practice of loophole supplementation by instructive cases are still commendable.The local court should study the guiding cases, fully understand the operation and limitation of the loophole supplement method, and enhance the ability and level of applying the method in the trial practice.
【作者单位】：山东大学威海法学院;山东大学(威海)法律方法论研究基地;
【分类号】：D903

【相似文献】