【作者】 刘骁；

【导师】 杨力；

【作者基本信息】 上海交通大学 ， 法理学， 2023， 硕士

【摘要】 《专利法》第三次修改时建立了现有技术抗辩制度,但抵触申请并未纳入抗辩事由。部分法院在司法实践中以抵触申请类推适用现有技术抗辩制度,本文旨在论证抵触申请能否类推适用现有技术抗辩制度。本文基于利益衡量的方法,深度考察现有技术抗辩的制度利益和社会公共利益,并基于专利类型、产业性质、侵权行为、侵权类型、剩余保护期限、对创新的激励等因素对专利权人的利益进行充分铺陈,在典型案例中分析和评价现有司法实践。基于公开的现有技术的不当授权,在专利无效和专利侵权分别由不同机关予以处理的职权分离背景下,为便于现有技术实施人节约程序成本和减轻诉累,作为一种极其例外的制度安排,专利法建立现有技术抗辩制度。公开在专利法上具有重要功能,公开是现有技术抗辩制度得以建立的重要前提,抵触申请在涉案专利申请日前并未公开,不具备现有技术抗辩制度的实体法基础。基于专利权人利益的充分铺陈,对被诉侵权人进行保护,有违专利权人利益,亦不符合制度利益和社会公共利益,类推适用的司法实践与利益衡量的结果存在冲突。现有裁判规则既与专利法的明文规定不符,亦不合理地压缩了专利权人在专利保护期内的合法利益空间,实质上削弱了对专利权人合法权益的保护,并打破了专利权人和社会公众之间的利益平衡,属于不当的司法扩张或涉嫌造法。司法实践中用于抵触申请抗辩的“抵触申请”并非真正的“抵触申请”,在解释论上无法自洽,“抵触申请抗辩”的提法应予摒弃。若法院继续类推适用现有技术抗辩制度,建议至少应对现行裁判规则做出如下改良:限制专利类型,排除发明;限制被诉侵权行为,排除制造;限制侵权类型,排除相同侵权。更多还原

【Abstract】 The third amendment to the Patent Law established a prior art defense system,but the conflicting application was not included in the defense.Some courts have applied the prior art defense system by analogy with the conflicting application in judicial practice.The purpose of this article is to argue whether the prior art defense system can be applied by analogy with the conflicting application.Based on a weighing of interests approach,this article examines in depth the institutional interests and social public interests of the prior art defense and fully lays out the interests of the patentee based on the type of patent,nature of the industry,infringement,type of infringement,remaining period of protection,incentive to innovation and other factors,and analyses and evaluates the existing judicial practice in a typical case.In the context of the separation of powers between patent invalidation and patent infringement,which are dealt with by different authorities,the patent law establishes a prior art defense system as an extremely exceptional institutional arrangement in order to facilitate prior art practitioners to save procedural costs and reduce the burden of litigation.The patent law has an important function of disclosure,and disclosure is an important prerequisite for the establishment of the prior art defense system.The conflicting application was not disclosed before the filing date of the patent application in question,and did not have the substantive law basis for the prior art defense system.Based on the full laying out of the interests of the patentee,the protection of the accused infringer is contrary to the interests of the patentee,and is also inconsistent with the interests of the system and the public interest,and the judicial practice of analogous application conflicts with the result of weighing interests.The existing rules of adjudication are not only inconsistent with the express provisions of the Patent Law,but also unreasonably compress the legitimate interests of the patentee during the patent protection period,substantially weakening the protection of the legitimate rights and interests of the patentee and breaking the balance of interests between the patentee and the public,which is an improper judicial expansion or suspected law-making.In judicial practice,the "conflicting application" used to defend against a conflicting application is not a genuine "conflicting application" and is not self-consistent in terms of interpretation,and the term "conflicting application defense" should be discarded.If the courts continue to apply the existing technical defense by analogy,it is suggested that at least the following improvements should be made to the existing rules of adjudication: restrict the type of patent to exclude inventions;restrict the infringement complained of to exclude manufacturing;restrict the type of infringement to exclude identical infringement.更多还原