【作者】 陈锋；

【导师】 李晓秋；

【作者基本信息】 重庆大学 ， 知识产权法学， 2018， 硕士

【摘要】 《专利法》赋予了专利权人寻求禁令救济之权利,但伴随着专利标准化的趋势,越来越多的专利纳入到标准中,标准与专利的融合为禁令救济的适用蒙上一层面纱。标准必要专利侵权纠纷案件频发,禁令救济的适用问题成为理论与司法实践的难点。一方面,法律要保障专利权人法定之权利,专利权人寻求禁令救济应当得到支持。另一方面,基于权利的边界性,标准必要专利具有的公共性属性以及专利权人做出的FRAND承诺等因素,应当对专利人寻求禁令救济进行限制;其次,标准必要专利人往往拥有市场支配地位,滥用禁令救济可能会限制和排除竞争,构成滥用市场支配地位,因此也应当适度的限制禁令救济的适用。本着《专利法》和《标准化法》促进技术推广与应用的目的,禁令救济适用制度的设计既要防止专利权人利用标准必要专利劫持专利实施者,也要防止专利实施者拒绝或者拖延谈判反向劫持专利权人。当前标准必要禁令救济在我国立法和司法上适用的态度还不够明晰,因此有必要明晰标准必要专利权人与标准必要专利实施者双方的义务,明确标准必要专利禁令救济适用的原则、规则以及禁令救济适用的程序。本文分为四个部分:第一部分:主要内容是对标准必要专利的基本概述,包括解释专利标准化含义,分析专利技术与标准融合的趋势,分析标准必要专利的内涵,探讨标准必要专利的认定因素,界定标准必要专利侵权纠纷中禁令救济的类型和分类,分析禁令救济制度的价值和功能等。第二部分:本部分是本文的理论基础,从理论的层面分析标准必要专利侵权纠纷中禁令救的适用。首先通过文献分析法分析标准必要专利权人作出FRAND承诺是否适用禁令救济,罗列各方的观点。其次,指出标准必要专利禁令救济适用的原则,应当以利益平衡原则为指导,兼顾标准必要专利权人以及专利实施者之间的利益。再次,从FRAND承诺内涵,权利限制论,交易成本理论以及专利劫持威胁角度入手初步得出结论,标准必要专利侵权纠纷中专利权人寻求禁令救济应当进行适度的限制。第三部分:通过比较法考察域内外标准必要专利禁令救济的适用规则,包含欧盟及其成员国以和美国禁令救济适用演变的过程,以及在不同时期的立场。分析其禁令救济适用的条件、路径、程序,为我国提供经验借鉴。同时,检视我国标准必要专利禁令救济适用规则在立法以及司法中的体现,评析其中的问题与不足。第四部分:主要内容为立足于我国禁令救济适用的立法和司法上的不足,借鉴欧美等西方国家较为成熟的经验,从FRAND义务的性质,禁令救济适用的思路,华为规则的引入以及禁令生效谈判模式的构建等角度进行探索,提出我国禁令救济适用的完善建议。更多还原

【Abstract】 The Patent Law empowers the patentee to seek injunctive relief.With the trend of patent standardization,more and more patents have been incorporated into the standard.The integration of standards and patents draws a veil to use of injunctive relief.A large number of standard essential patent infringement cases have occurred in various countries in the world,and it has become the important problem in theoretical and judicial practice circles how or whether injunction relief is applied,thus attracted the attention of all parties.On the one hand,the statutory rights of the patentee should be protected,and also the patentee’s injunctive relief should be supported.On the other hand,first of all,based on the boundary of rights,the patentee’s application for injunctive relief should be refrained due to public nature of the standard and the FRAND made by the patentee;secondly,as standard essential patentee with dominant market position would abuse of the application for injunctive relief,such abuse would limit and eliminate competition and an abuse of market dominance is finally constituted.Therefore,there should be a modest restriction on the use of injunctive relief by standard-essential patentees.With the purpose of promoting of the development,promotion and application of technology in the Patent Law and the Standardization Law,the injunctive relief system aims at preventing the patentee from abusing rights to hijack the patent implementer,and preventing the patent implementer from reverse hijacking the patentee by rejecting or delaying the negotiation.At present,the attitude towards the use of injunctive relief is still not clear in legislation and judicature in China.Since the patent law is still in the process of revision,it is necessary to clarify the obligations between the parties and it is also important to clarify the principle of use,rules,and procedures of injunctive relief for standard essential patents.This thesis is divided into four parts:The first part outlines standard essential patents,explains definition of patent standardization,analyzes the trend of the integration of patent technology and standards,the connotation of standard essential patents,explores identified factors of "essential patents",and defines types and classification of injunction relief in standard necessary patent infringement disputes,analyzes value and function of the injunction relief system.The second part is the theoretical basis of this thesis.It theoretically analyzes use of injunctive relief in standard necessary patent infringement disputes.Firstly,it analyzes whether FRAND made by standard essential patentee is applied to use of injunctive relief through literature analysis,and the opinions of all parties are listed.Second,the principle of use of injunctive relief in standard necessary patent should be guided by the principle of balance of interests,and takes into account the interests of the standard necessary patentee and the patent enforcer.Thirdly,starting from the angles of FRAND commitment,rights restriction theory,transaction cost theory and the threat of patent hijacking,it is basically concluded that use of injunctive relief in standard essential patent infringement disputes should be appropriately limited.The third part conducts the examination on the applicable rules of the injunctive remedy in standard essential patents in domestic and foreign countries,including the EU and its member states and the United States,and the evolution of injunctive relief application,as well as the position in different periods.It analyzes and learns from the conditions,routes and procedure about the use of injunctive relief.At the same time,it examines use of injunctive relief in standard essential patent in legislation and judicature in China,and analyzes the problems and deficiencies thereof.Based on the legislative and judicial deficiencies of use of injunctive relief in China,the Part IV draws lessons from more mature experiences of western countries like Europe and America.It puts forward proposals about improvement for use of injunction relief in China in perspective of clarification of the FRAND commitment obligations,reference to Huawei’s rules,and introduction of negotiation of effective injunctive relief.更多还原