“欢迎访问北京理工大学学报社会科学版网站!”
加入收藏 | 地图 | 联系方式      
 
专利停止侵害请求权限制的司法适用
Research on the Limiting of Injunctive Relief for Infringement on Patent—Based on the Article 26 of the Interpretation of Patent II
投稿时间:2017-05-26  最后修改时间:2017-05-26
DOI:
中文关键词:  停止侵害请求权  “四要素测试”  公共利益  合理费用
English Keywords:patent injunction  four factor test  public interest  reasonable fee
基金项目:国家社会科学基金项目 “中国高铁产业发展中的知识产权对策研究”( 11BFX044)
作者单位E-mail
黄玉烨 知识产权学院 byewhy@hotmail.com 
摘要点击次数: 133
全文下载次数: 
中文摘要:
      我国专利停止侵害请求权的规定主要源自于民法上对有体物的规定。囿于传统民法理论,侵权即停止侵害业已成为专利领域的司法惯例。专利司法解释(二)26条被视为是侵权当然停止论的突破。但我国现行专利权制度并没有就其中的公共利益及合理费用等概念进行厘定。美国在禁令限制和替代性措施方面进行了有益的尝试和探索。从我国专利停止侵害请求权限制的立法沿革及现有的司法实践上看,公共利益与企业性质以及专利性质无关,应当严格界定在Trips所规定的公共安全、公共卫生等领域内。当权利人滥用专利危害社会公共利益时,也可适用第26条。合理费用不同于自愿专利许可使用费和强制许可的许可费,而应是在给予侵权人充分救济的前提下对权利人损失的合理补偿。在合理费用界定方面,可以通过借鉴美国Georgia-Pacific案所确定的15种因素来进行判定未来使用费。此外,专利停止侵害请求权限制不应扩展到诉前禁令。
English Summary:
      The provisions of patent infringement claim in our country mainly originated from regulations of?the?real right?object in the civil law. Confined to the traditional theory of civil law, it has become?a?common?practice in the field of patent. Article 26 of Patent Law Judicial Interpretation (II) is regarded as a breakthrough .It is difficult to define the public interest and reasonable costs. The current patent system in our country has not been define these above concepts as well. The United States has made useful attempts in the application of restrictions on injunction and alternative measures. From the legislative evolution and the existing judicial practice, the public interest has nothing to do with the nature of the enterprise and the nature of the patent. It should be strictly limited in the areas of public safety, public health and so on which has been stipulated by Trips. Article 26 may also apply when the patentee abuses the patent against the public interest. Reasonable costs are different from the voluntary royalties and compulsory licensing fees, however, it should be given full relief to the infringer under the premise of the loss of reasonable compensation for the right. In the definition of reasonable costs, case Georgia-Pacific which founded 15 factors to determine the future use fee?brings?the?instructive enlightenment. In addition, the patent infringement claims restriction should not be extended to?temporary restraining order.
查看全文  查看/发表评论  下载PDF阅读器

您是第2114234位访问者  今日共有625访问者
版权所有:北京理工大学学术期刊办公室
主管单位:中华人民共和国工业和信息化部 主办单位:北京理工大学 地址:北京市海淀区中关村南大街5号
技术支持:北京勤云科技发展有限公司