确认不侵犯知识产权诉讼问题研究

【作者】 蒋超；

【导师】 章武生；

【作者基本信息】 复旦大学 ， 法律， 2008， 硕士

【摘要】 确认不侵犯知识产权诉讼是近年来我国知识产权诉讼领域出现的一种新型诉讼。其特别之处是,在该类诉讼中,涉嫌侵权人成为原告而知识产权权利人反为被告,从而颠倒了传统知识产权侵权诉讼中当事人的角色。由于目前我国尚缺乏明确的法律规定,对如何处理该类诉讼,实务界和理论界均感到困惑。其中,比较棘手的问题是如何确定其诉权要件特别是诉的利益、如何规定合理的诉讼管辖、举证责任以及能否反诉等等。本文立足于我国司法实践,对确认不侵犯知识产权诉讼的诉权要件等一系列问题作了比较深入的研究。本文试图通过对此类诉讼进行较为全面的剖析,以期能为我国的立法、司法提供一定参考借鉴之用。全文内容包括前言及正文(三章及其结语)。前言:该部分阐述了本文的研究背景、研究主旨、研究价值及研究思路。在第一章中,首先对确认不侵犯知识产权诉讼的概念进行界定,接着比较详细地分析了该类诉讼的由来,并就诉讼实务中出现的问题作了简要交待,然后就此类诉讼背后涉及的诉权理论问题作了阐述,为进一步展开该类诉讼诉权要件的探讨作了铺垫。在第二章中,首先在批判侵权之诉说的基础上,论证了该类诉讼属于确认之诉的性质。接下来,重点就该类诉讼诉的利益的判断标准问题,在批判吸收现有诸观点的基础上,提出并论证了起诉催告制度的构想。该制度设计出了一种“起诉催告”令。在该程序中,涉嫌侵权人必须证明其收到了来自权利人的侵权警告,并且该警告使自己的利益受到了严重威胁。然后,法官向权利人发出“起诉催告”令,以督促其在合理时间内提起诉讼否则将产生不利后果,同时,该命令也会因被告提出有效异议而失效即诉的利益遭到否定而将导致诉被驳回。在第三章中,针对确认不侵犯知识产权诉讼审理中的几个主要问题进行了探讨,比如地域管辖问题,通过对民事诉讼理论及实务上的三大地域管辖的联结点即被告所在地、侵权行为地及原告所在地分别加以分析,构建确认不侵犯知识产权诉讼在不同情况下的地域管辖制度,对于诉讼进行中被告的反诉、当事人的举证责任及裁判等问题也作了简要分析,表明了自己的见解。结语对本文所述内容作结论性总结并提出了有待继续探索和研究的问题。更多还原

【Abstract】 Confirming non-infringing intellectual property right (IPR) lawsuit is a new type of intellectual property litigation arising in China’ s court in recent years. What has been peculiar about this kind of suit is that suspected infringer herein becomes plaintiff and IPR holder, on the contrary, is taken as defendant and, thus utterly exchanges the roles of two parties in traditional intellectual property infringement litigation. Since there is no definite law and rule to regulate this suit in our country at present, both the judicial academia and the practice feel perplexed for the disposal thereof. And among all the problems in confirming non-infringing IPR lawsuit, the following are especially troublesome. That is how to determine interest of action, as one of prerequisites of right of civil action herein, what should be considered when defining the issues such as lawsuit jurisdiction, burden of proof and counterclaim. Based on judicial practice of our country, this paper is a deep research and analysis on the issues like the essential condition of confirming non-infringing IPR lawsuit and, tries provide some references and do certain help for legislation and judicial practice.The paper consists of four parts and they are the foreword, three sections and the end thereof.The foreword introduces the background, the substance, the value and main thoughts of this topic study. In the first chapter, this paper gives its definition of confirming non-infringing IPR lawsuit, and then analyzes the origin of this kind of suit and shows the issues in the litigation practice. Afterwards, the paper explains theories on rights of action behind this suit which is the basis of further study on the prerequisites of right of civil action herein. In the second chapter, this paper proves that the suit herein should belongs to confirming suit by animadverting the "tort suit theory" at the beginning, and then put forward the "Provokationsprozess" (German)assumption based on the present theories. In the procedure, the accused infringer shall prove that, he or she has received the intellectual property infringement warning from the relevant IPR holder which makes his or her interests under severe threats. Then, the court sends off an order called "Provokationsprozess" to the IPR holder to hurry he or she up to bring suit, otherwise may put him or herself at a disadvantage. But, there are some exceptions to validity of the order. In third chapter, the paper goes on discuss several hot issues on the confirming non-infringing IPR lawsuit such as territory jurisdiction which in the author’ s opinion, should be established according to three different contact factors analysis. Besides, it also brings forwards the author’ s point of view on the issues like counterclaim, burden of proof and judgment and verdict.The end mainly summaries the contents of the paper and gives some questions and problems which are worth further studying on.更多还原