【作者】 程中华；

【导师】 周伟文；

【作者基本信息】 华东政法学院 ， 法律， 2005， 硕士

【摘要】 专利制度在我国的实施时间与西方国家相比相对短暂,然而随着新的技术与信息不断涌入,以及我们的自主研发能力不断提升,对侵犯专利权等知识产权的打击力度应得到加强。但在司法实践中,对专利侵权行为的判定是一个难点。本文采用理论与案例分析相结合的方法,重点就与侵权判定有关的一些特殊原则进行了探讨。文章首先从专利侵权行为的构成要件着手,通过与一般民事侵权行为的构成要件进行比较,突显出专利侵权行为构成要件的特殊之处,并通过其中的“行为的违法性”这一要件,引申出目前司法界常用的五个判定原则。全面覆盖原则是侵权判定的基础性原则,本文第二章对该原则下的侵权行为类型进行了简单说明,并分析了两类典型的非侵权行为的特征。在等同原则部分,文章通过一系列美国的判例介绍了这一原则的发展历史,并对适用过程中常遇到的问题展开了论述。诸如美国、日本及我国对等同物确认的异同;各国对等同的时间界限的不同选择等。等同方法的选择是本章的一个重点,因为“整体等同”与“逐一技术要素的等同”对等同原则适用的影响很大,这一问题的解决在很大程度上关系到等同原则的存在意义。第四章是对多余指定原则的介绍。该原则的适用目前在我国颇有争议,本文认为在当前形势下其仍有适用的必要,但应把握从严的原则。宽恕学说是多余指定原则的理论基础,但其适用的弊端也不容忽视,因此,有关该原则的问题更应得到人们的重视。对侵权行为的指控必然导致侵权方的抗辩,在抗辩过程中常用的两大原则是禁止反悔原则以及公知技术抗辩原则,这是本文第五章的主要内容。禁止反悔原更多还原

【Abstract】 The patent system compares in our country’s implementation time and the western nation relatively short. However, with the new technology and the information inrushes unceasingly, as well as our independent research and development ability promotes constantly, enhancing the treatment dynamics upon infringement of intellectual property rights and so on the patent rights is necessary. But in the judicial practice, determining the patent infringement is a difficulty. This dissertation is focus on some special doctrines related to the patent infringement determination by means of theory and cases analysis. The article first begins with the constitution of patent infringement, through carrying on the comparison with the general civil tort, and shows the special character of patent infringement constitution. In addition, through the element of illegal behavior explicates five determination doctrines commonly which be applied in judicial practice. The full-scale embrace doctrine is a foundational doctrine in all the determination doctrines. A simple introduction on the patent infringement executed in the full-scale embrace doctrine and character analysis of two kind of typical non-infringement are the main content of chapter two. In the part of doctrine of equivalents, the article introduces the history of this doctrine by some cases of the U.S. and researches some questions which arise in the judicial application, such as introduction of the similarities and differences in confirming the equivalent element in American, Japanese and our country, various countries’different choices with the time boundary of equivalent and so on. The choice of equivalent means is a focus of this chapter, because the choice of “whole patent rule”and “element by element rule”is very important to the application of equivalent doctrine, and the settlement of this problem concerns the existence meaning of the doctrine to a great extent. Chapter four is an introduction to the unnecessary appointing rule. There are many dispute at present in our country about this rule, the dissertation stands for the application of this rule under the current situation while should hold strict principle. The forgives theory is the theoretical foundation of this rule, but its shortcoming can’t be ignored either, so, the question about this rule should get people’s attention even more. Accusation in infringement must result in demur from the accused, they commonly use two major principles which are the prosecution history estoppel and prior art counterplead doctrine to demur, and this is the main content of chapter five of this article. The theoretical foundation of the prosecution history estoppel is honest credit principle. Through some cases we can see that the applicable scope of prosecution history estoppel is expanding gradually, and the article has different viewpoint to this principle applicable subject too. Discussion on the prior art counterplead doctrine, the dissertation first places the focus on the scope of “prior art”. The article stands for that the limit of “public”should be excluded, and the simple combination also should be under the permission. In addition, the article has simple introductions on the principle’s applicable scope as well as the relationship between the principle and the invalid procedure, and has compared with the relationship among the prior art, the patented technology and the accused infringing technology. Finally, this article has carried on the summary to above mentioned various doctrines’different functions in the infringement determination, and thinks that on one hand should pay attention to absorbing selectively in case of present ourcountry, should quicken step to the perfection of relevant law and regulation in addition. Only then can display the above mentioned doctrines’efficiency well in this way, and guarantee the unity and fairness of the justice to the maximum extent.更多还原