专利当地实施要求的法律思考

专利法中的“当地实施要求”是指专利权人必须在授予其专利的国家充分实施其专利;否则东道国可 以强制许可实施甚至撤销该专利。各国专利法中的“当地实施要求”条款与TRIPS协议是否存在冲突,发达国家和发展中国家各执一词。但从立法史上来看,《巴黎公约》对其最初予以确认,其后历次大会经剧烈争论后仍将其保留,说明其具有历史的合理性;从条     

加入WTO对中国商标法的影响

2001年12月11日,我国正式成为世界贸易组织(WTO)成员,并履行《与贸易有关的知识产权协议》(以下简称TRIPS协定)规定的义务.1985年我国加入《保护工业产权巴黎公约》(以下简称《巴黎公约》).《巴黎公约》是保护知识产权的重要公约,TRIPS协定是在《巴黎公约》的基础上增加了一些保护知识产权的具体条款.它包括对各种知识产权的保护规定,10年来,它对商标领域的发展产生了重要的影响.     

论“TRIPS-递增”协定在WIPO公约体系和WTO法律框架下的制度空间与适用关系

“TRIPS-递增”协定是后TRIPS时代发达国家向发展中国家输送其知识产权保护标准的主要法律形态。此类协定可能影响发展中国家公共政策目标的实现，缩减这些国家利用WTO/TRIPS框架下的变通性规定促进其发展的自由选择空间。但是，在WIPO公约体系和WTO法律框架下，“TRIPS-递增”协定具有其存在的制度空间和正当理由。因此，发展中国家一方面要根据一般国际法的相关规定，认识和处理“TRIPS-递增”协定与WTO框架公约和WTO／TRIPS协议的关系，另一方面要通过联合抵制或“体制转向”阻止“TRIPS-递增”知识产权保护标准的扩张。     

TRIPS协议下发展中国家获得专利药品的政策选择

WTO《与贸易有关的知识产权协定》(以下简称TRIPS或TRIPS协定)将专利保护扩大到医药产品，它要求WTO所有成员承认并加强对包括医药专利在内的知识产权的保护。这给发展中国家防治传染病计划带来许多困难。然而TRIPS协定同时也考虑到了发展中国家公共健康保护的需求，和其他知识产权一样，对专利保护规定了许多例外或限制。这些知识产权的例外和限制就可以作为发展中国家获得专利药品的选择途径，包括强制许可、平行进口和第TRIPS第30条规定的专利权“有限例外”。本文意图通过对这些选择途径进行分析，对相关条款进行解释，并找出这些条款中需要进一步澄清的内容。     

TRIPS协议公共利益原则条款的含义及效力——以TRIPS协议第7条能否约束其后的权利人条款为中心

TRIP协议第7条规定了TRIPS的5个目标:技术创新、技术转让和传播、技术知识的生产和使用、社会和经济福利、权利义务平衡。对该条的含义、效力、适用范围等问题存在不同理解。有学者认为该条解释性价值与序言中的任何规定相当,对其后的条款没有约束和指导效力。从国际条约的表述结构、文义解释、WTO案例指导和适用、国际技术贸易的客观要求等方面来理解第7条的效力与含义,并根据《维也纳条约法公约》关于条约遵守、解释、失效之规定,可以看到:TRIPS乃有效条约,对其各成员有拘束力,必须善意履行;TRIPS第7条具有法律约束力和指导效力,具有整合TRIPS条款的重要地位,是对与TRIPS的一致性进行评估的重要依据之一。     

从TRIPS协议弹性条款谈起

TRIPS规则直接影响到各成员方的贸易利益,也极大地影响着社会公共利益。所以,TRIPS协议的产生和实施都围绕着成员间利益冲突的协调和平衡。本文通过分析协议的利益平衡安排,区分并比较专为发展中国家设置的特殊条款和允许各成员伸缩处理的弹性条款对利益平衡的不同作用,从中得出对“利益平衡”的寻求关键在于弹性条款的灵活运用,特别是发展中国家要充分利用TRIPS协议的弹性条款,在其设置的弹性空间中保护自身利益,寻求权利和义务的平衡。最后以此指导中国对TRIPS规则的转化和适用,使中国的知识产权立法更加完善。     

试论驰名商标的认定标准

我国于1985年加入了《保护工业产权巴黎公约》,承担特别保护驰名商标的义务。十年来,我国国家工商行政管理局商标局认定了“茅台”、“五粮液”等19件驰名商标。然而,《巴黎公约》尽管规定了驰名商标的特别保护条款,但未明确驰     

从TRIPS“违法之诉”的争端解决浅析国际条约的条约解释规则

本文试图从TRIPS协定本身对于其争端解决原则规则的特殊规定，即对于“违法之诉”的争端解决的规则和制度，并结合后续通过的诸如《TRIPS协定与公共健康宣言》、《多哈宣言第六段的执行决议》等“立法”或者“司法”解释性文件分析，在目前的形势下，最不发达国家、发展中国家，进而我国应该做好哪些战略准备，又采取哪些策略去应对目前复杂的TRIPS协定个案的争端解决之条约解释问题。     

TRIPS协议保护地理标志规范评析

《TRIPS协议》是地理标志国际保护的一个里程碑,是第一个拥有150个签署方并规定最低保护标准的国际协议,也是第一个对GIs保护问题规定得最全面的国际条约。其第5部分规定适用高效的WTO争端解决机制来解决地理标志国际保护方面的争端,允许进行交叉报复。通过第71条定期审核和第23条关于协商的规定,给予协议的实施和发展以有效的监督,并预留了空间。《TRIPS协议》第3部分为地理标志权利人规定了获得救济的多种途径。对协议条款不允许提出保留,从而加强了协议的拘束力和实施效果。该协议是对其前地理标志国际保护公约成就的继承,也是对以往相关公约缺陷的弥补。《TRIPS协议》自身的缺陷包括协议保护范围的不确定性和例外、成员方的自由裁量权及对地理标志跨国争议案件裁决结果的不确定性。因此,TRIPS协议仍有许多用语和难题需要澄清和解决。     

境外未注册驰名商标与注册驰名商标司法认定的比较分析

驰名商标包括注册商标和未注册驰名商标两种情况,对未注册驰名商标进行司法保护不仅是履行《巴黎公约》和TRIPS协议的国际法上的义务要求,而且也是世界各国商标立法和司法保护实践普遍一致的做法。我国在2001年修改《商标法》时,将未注册商标纳入《商标     

Exploring the flexibilities in TRIPS: lessons from India's pharmaceutical patent law

This article examines the extent to which the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS Agreement) permits countries to utilize two key flexibilities, i.e. the exclusion of new forms of known drugs from patent protection and local working requirements to facilitate access to affordable medicines and foster domestic pharmaceutical innovation. It examines how India has implemented and recently utilized these two key flexibilities and concludes with the view that other developing countries can equally follow the Indian model.     

滥用专利权的内涵及其制止措施

通过论述在我国建立制止滥用专利权体系的必要性,围绕滥用专利权行为的内涵以及制止滥用专利权行为的措施这两个核心问题,介绍了《巴黎公约》和《TRIPS协定》的有关规定以及美国制止滥用专利权行为的实际做法,在此基础上分析我国反垄断法和专利法有关规定的含义.     

Who shall live when not all can live? Intellectual property in accessing and benefit-sharing influenza viruses through the World Health Organisation

This article addresses the development of the World Health Organisation's (WHO) arrangements for accessing viruses and the development of vaccines to respond to potential pandemics (and other lesser outbreaks). It examines the ongoing "conflict" between the United Nations' Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and the World Trade Organisation's Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) in the context of the debates about the paramountcy of intellectual property, and the potential for other (equity and development) imperatives to over-ride respect for intellectual property and TRIPS. The article concludes that the same intellectual property fault lines are evident in the WHO forum as those apparent at the CBD and the WTO fora, and an ongoing failure to properly address questions of equity and development. This poses a challenge for the Australian Government in guaranteeing a satisfactory pandemic influenza preparation and response.     

US files WTO complaints against Brazil over requirement for "local working" of patents

At the end of May 2000, the US (later joined by the European Communities) filed a complaint against Brazil at the World Trade Organization (WTO), alleging Brazil was in violation of its obligations under the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (the TRIPS Agreement) and the 1994 General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. Brazilian legislation that came into force in 1997 establishes that, in order to enjoy exclusive patent rights in Brazil, the holder of a patent on an invention must satisfy a "local working" requirement. In other words, the patent holder must "work" the patent in Brazil to enjoy full patent protection. If it fails to do this, the law says it shall be subject to the possibility of the government issuing a compulsory license, allowing someone else to use the invention and pay a royalty fee to the patent holder.     

TR IPS 协定下为公众健康限制商标使用的合法性评析

对于澳大利亚为公众健康限制商标使用权而出台的烟草通用包装法案是否违反了TRIPS协定,众说纷纭。支持和反对该法案者的三个争议焦点是:限制烟草商标的使用是否违反TRIPS协定中有关商标注册条款、TRIPS协定赋予商标权人肯定性权利还是否定性权利,以及为保护公众健康限制烟草商标使用能否构成妨碍商标使用的合理措施。结合TRIPS相关条款解释及WTO类似案例的专家组和上诉机构裁决,并对上述争议焦点逐一展开论述,确定为公众健康限制商标使用权的成员国没有违反TRIPS协定下的义务。     

WTO ministerial conference adopts declaration on TRIPS and public health

In November 2001, the 4th Ministerial Conference of the World Trade Organization adopted a Ministerial Declaration on public health and the WTO's Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (the "TRIPS Agreement"). The declaration represents a modest advance in addressing concerns that strict patent laws, and threats of trade sanctions, will be a barrier to most of the world's people with HIV/AIDS accessing affordable medicines. The full significance of the declaration remains to be seen, as it depends on what political impact it has at the WTO and on its member countries, and what legal impact it will have in the interpretation of the TRIPS Agreement.     

Canada loses appeal of WTO panel ruling on minimum patent terms

In the last issue, we reported on a ruling of a Panel of the World Trade Organization (WTO) that Canada was in breach of the international Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (the TRIPS Agreement). The Panel found that Canada's Patent Act does not provide the minimum patent terms required by the trade agreement. Canada appealed that decision, but on 18 September 2000 the WTO Appellate Body upheld the Panel ruling.     

后TRIPS协议时代的贸易协定与知识产权条款

TRIPS协议建立了全球统一的知识产权基准之后,世界知识产权组织(WIPO)接着制定了两个因特网版权条约。国际知识产权法和政策多以双边、多边、地区性的形式出现。从上个世纪90年代中期开始,国际上达成更高知识产权保护标准协议的场合也从WIPO和WTO转向了自由贸易协议(FTAs),并且与知识产权条款的关系呈现出新的特点。     

TRIPS协定与国际贸易中的知识产权壁垒

TRIPS协定为世界范围内的知识产权保护建立了统一可执行的最低标准,打破了知识产权所固有的地域性的限制,在很大程度上促进了国际贸易的自由化进程。但是,由于TRIPS协定规定的统一标准过于维护权利人利益,部分超出了发展中国家的能力范围,给国际贸易造成了新的障碍和壁垒。新的知识产权壁垒的产生,又在一定程度上限制了国际贸易的自由化。因此,TRIPS协定对于国际贸易来说无疑是一把“双刃剑”。     

The Cybercrime Convention Committee's 2017 Guidance Note on Production Orders: Unilateralist transborder access to electronic evidence promoted via soft law

This article provides a critical analysis of the Council of Europe Cybercrime Convention Committee's Guidance Note of Production Orders, published on 1 March 2017. The article looks at the legal controversies surrounding production orders with a cross-border element. It explains the Guidance Note's background and origins, the basic provisions in the Cybercrime Convention allowing the law enforcement authorities to order and obtain certain information and discusses the requirements that follow from the relevant provisions of the Convention. This analysis is complemented by four critical remarks on the way the Guidance Note pushes the boundaries of acceptable treaty interpretation on the necessity of the Guidance Note, its position in regard to extraterritorial enforcement jurisdiction and sovereignty, its reticence towards fundamental rights and its refusal to define or clarify the important notion of “subscriber information”. The article argues that unilateralism is not a solution. Instead of soft law plumbing, what is needed is an agreement between sovereign states checked by their constituencies.