【作者】 王迪；

【导师】 彭哲；

【作者基本信息】 山东大学 ， 法律（非法学）（专业学位）， 2021， 硕士

【摘要】 世界各国处于开放的环境之中,各个国家贸易往来频繁,国际贸易快速发展,平行进口问题这些年来成为一个多领域的关注点,平行进口问题是否合理合法一直以来没有确定的说法。随着人们对专利保护措施的重视,专利产品平行进口其中的问题也得到了人们的注意。TRIPs协定将知识产权与世界贸易联系在一起,构建了全球范围内的知识产权争议处理机制,这就让我们对知识产权的保护,突破了国内法的规制范围,也正是由于知识产权超越了国家之间的界限,平行进口的问题才会变得极为突出。在国际贸易的大背景下,这一问题不只是关系到专利权人的切身利益,而且与消费者的合法权益、消费体验,以及国家的经济发展、科技创新和对外贸易等方面都有着密切的联系。本文创新点主要有三点。第一,材料新。本文引用了新的案例,在第二部分引用了澳大利亚Calidad Pty Ltd v.Seiko Epson Corporation一案,此案从 2017 年一直持续至 2020 年,直至 2020年11月,澳大利亚高等法院给出了判决意见。在此案件中,初审法院和合议庭适用默示许可理论,得出了侵权的结论,高等法院适用权利用尽理论,得出了未侵权的结论。对比美国Priebe&Sons v.Hunt一案,适用默示许可与权利用尽得出同样的结论,总结出了平行进口两大理论之间的相同点和不同点。第二,视角新。本文结合汽车产业、药品产业以及目前我国的专利发展情况,分析我国专利产品平行进口法律规制产生的社会效果。由于我们还未掌握内燃机核心技术,我国的汽车企业需要从国外进口相关产品或者获得相应的许可,采取权利用尽理论放开平行进口有利于降低产品定价或者许可费,以达到降低企业成本的目的。药品关系到国民生命健康,与其他产业相比,更具特殊性,虽然提高药品可及性有利于国民在危及公共健康的事件中更快更低价的获取药品,但公共安全事件并不是时时发生,药品的安全性更应该被注意,因此在药品产业更适合采取默示许可理论。同时,我国专利申请数量节节攀升,我国专利权人的利益也获得了公众的重视。综合考虑多方面因素,立足我国发展现状,给出更妥善的解决建议。第三,观点新。本文第四章给出的建议并没有局限于只采取一种理论,而是提出了两种理论并行的建议。权利用尽与默示许可都不是禁止平行进口的理论,二者的最大区别在于对专利权人权利的保护程度不一样。同时适用也应作出区分,当专利权人作出权利限制时,原则采取默示许可,相反则采取权利用尽。本文内容在结构上共分四部分。第一部分是专利产品平行进口概述,主要对平行进口的概念与成因进行详细的阐述。第二部分为专利产品平行进口两大理论基础的适用,结合Priebe&Sons v.Hunt 和 Calidad Pty Ltd v.Seiko Epson Corporation 两个案例进行分析,Priebe&Sons v.Hunt分别适用权利用尽理论和默示许可理论得到相同判决结果,而Calidad Pty Ltd v.Seiko Epson Corporation分别适用权利用尽理论和默示许可理论得到不同的结论,分析二种理论之间的区别与联系。第三部分为我国专利产品平行进口的立法现状与社会影响,结合平行进口汽车、平行进口药品以及当前我国专利发展情况,讨论我国现行专利平行进口法律规制的社会影响。第四部分的内容是对我国专利产品平行进口制度加以完善的建议,站在国际贸易的视角并立足国家整体利益,建议明确适用条件的同时也要留出变通的空间,以面对未来平行进口可能产生的变化。由于当前国际贸易背景下,平行进口的具体情况复杂多样,仅适用权利用尽理论或默示许可理论难以妥当处理所有情况。因此,引入默示许可理论,明确默示许可理论的适用条件,使其和权利用尽理论相互协调,以应对种类繁多的平行进口现象。更多还原

【Abstract】 World under open environment,various countries trade is frequent,international trade fast development,the problem of parallel imports over the years become a hot research topic in many areas,parallel import is a collection of various factors such as economy,trade,law in a complex problem,parallel import question whether reasonable and lawful has been not yet been determined.Parallel import of patented products is one of the important parts of parallel import of intellectual property rights.With people’s attention to patent protection measures,the problems have been paid attention to.TRIPs agreement to intellectual property rights associated with the world trade,built a global intellectual property dispute processing mechanism,which brings us the protection of intellectual property rights,breaking the law regulating range,it is because of the intellectual property rights beyond the boundaries between countries,the problem of parallel imports will become very prominent.In the context of international trade,this issue is not only related to the vital interests of the patentee,but also closely related to the rights and interests of consumers,consumer experience,national economic development,scientific and technological innovation and foreign trade.Therefore,it is of great theoretical and practical significance to perfect the legal system of parallel import of patented products in China.There are three main innovations.First,the material is new.This paper cites new cases.In the second part,it cites the case of Calidad Pty Ltd v.Seiko Epson Corporation in Australia,which lasted from 2017 to 2020.Until November 2020,the High Court of Australia gave its judgment opinion.In this case,the trial court and the collegial panel applied the implied license theory and reached the conclusion of infringement,while the high court applied the exhaustion of rights theory and reached the conclusion of non-infringement.By comparing the case of Priebe&Sons v.Hunt in the United States,the same conclusion is reached by applying the implied license and the exhaustion of right,and the similarities and differences between the two theories of parallel import are summarized.Second,the perspective is new.Based on the automobile industry,pharmaceutical industry and the current patent development in China,this paperanalyzes the social effects of the legal regulation on parallel import of patented products in China.Since the core engine technology of the automobile industry is still in the hands of foreigners,Chinese automobile enterprises need to import related products from abroad or obtain corresponding licenses.Taking the theory of exhaustion of rights to liberalize parallel import is conducive to reducing product pricing or license fees,so as to achieve the purpose of reducing enterprise costs.Pharmaceuticals related to the national health life,compared with other industries,more particular,although improve accessibility is advantageous to the national medicine in endanger public health incident faster and more low-cost access to drugs,but public security events are not always occur,the safety of the drug should be noticed,so in the pharmaceutical industry is more suitable for take the implied license theory.At the same time,the number of patent applications in China has been rising,and the interests of the patentee in China have also been paid attention to by the public.Comprehensive consideration of various factors,based on the current situation of China’s development,give more appropriate solutions.Third,new ideas.The fourth chapter of this paper is not limited to the adoption of only one theory,but put forward the suggestion of two theories parallel.Neither exhaustion of right nor implied license is the theory of prohibiting parallel import.The biggest difference between the two lies in the different degree of protection of the patentee’s rights.At the same time,the application should also make a distinction:when the patentee limits the right,the principle is to take the implied license,on the contrary,to take the exhaustion of the right.The content of this paper is divided into four parts in structure.The first part is an overview of parallel import of patented products,mainly elaborating the concept and causes of parallel import.The second part is the application of the two theoretical bases of parallel import of patented products,which is analyzed by combining the cases of Priebe&Sons v.Hunt and Calidad Pty Ltd.V.Seiko Epson Corporation.Priebe&Sons v.Hunt respectively applied the exhaustion of rights theory and the implied license theory and got the same judgment,while Calidad Pty Ltd v.Seiko Epson Corporation respectively applied the exhaustion of rights theory and the implied license theory and got different conclusions.Analyze the difference and connection between the two theories.The third part is the legislative status quo and social impact of parallel import of patent products in China.In combination with parallel import of cars,parallel import of drugs and current patent development in China,the social impact of current legal regulation of parallel import of patent in China is discussed.The fourth part of the content of China’s patent product parallel import system to improve the suggestions,standing in the perspective of international trade and based on the overall national interests,it is suggested to clarify the applicable conditions while leaving room for flexibility,in order to face the future parallel import may produce changes.Under the current international trade background,the specific situation of parallel import is complex and varied,so it is difficult to properly deal with all the cases only by applying the exhaustion of rights theory or the implied license theory.At the same time,there is a problem in China that the application boundary between the exhaustion of rights theory and the implied license theory is not clear.Therefore,the adoption of both the implied licensing theory and the exhaustion of rights theory can better cope with a wide variety of parallel imports.At the same time,relevant judicial interpretations should also be issued to list the specific circumstances of the application of the exhaustion of rights theory and the implied licensing theory,so as to draw a clear line between the application of the two theories and make specific analysis of specific problems.更多还原