专利联营之反垄断规制分析

由于“专利灌丛”问题,产业发展越来越受控于很多分散的、独立的专利权。专利联营解决了这一问题,它整合了互补技术,降低了交易成本,排除了专利间实施的交互限制,避免了昂贵的法律诉讼。但由于专利联营固有的“联合”特点,使其必然对联合体之外的市场主体构成限制竞争,具有“垄断”的先天嫌疑,而由于专利联营政策越来越被拥有较多专利权的跨国企业控制,特别是信息领域技术标准制定中诞生的专利联营,已经凸现出滥用市场支配力、防碍技术创新的趋势。因此,有必要制定专利联营的反垄断规则。     

论专利侵权判定中等同原则的完善

专利是推动社会进步、经济发展的重要制度保证.依法保护专利权、制裁侵犯专利权的行为,首要和关键的问题就在于对是否为专利侵权进行判定."等同原则"是专利侵权判定的一项重要原则.然而,该原则的合理适用被中外专利、司法界喻为"专利诉讼中最富挑战性的难题",对"等同"的认定产生偏差将导致该原则在适用中标准不统一,严重影响司法的社会效果和司法的统一性.即力图对等同原则这一在国内外专利侵权判定中长期争论的问题再作一思考,以期对等同原则的科学适用和进一步完善进行一些有益的探讨.     

Mediation of Intellectual Property disputes

Legal and practical context. Mediation can bring real benefitsin avoiding protracted and costly IP litigation and is suitablefor most IP disputes except where a matter of principle, suchas construction of patent claims, requires resolution. Key points. Mediation may be used at any time to resolve a dispute.The courts can give robust encouragement by means of costs sanctionsand ADR orders but cannot compel the use of mediation. The Proceedsof Crime Act 2002 may apply to some mediated settlements, particularlythose involving trade mark and copyright infringement disputes. Practical significance. The courts and the Patent Office areactively seeking ways to encourage mediation of IP disputesand the Patent Office has announced the setting up of a mediationscheme.     

软件相关方法专利多主体分别实施侵权的责任分析

以软件控制并由多方主体分别实施的方法发明在物联网时代日益重要,但此类方法专利的保护在实践中存在着困难。针对方法专利的多主体分别实施侵权,采取有意思联络的共同侵权、以主动或明知为主观条件的间接侵权、承担连带责任的无意思联络的数人侵权等方式均难以准确判定并追究行为人的侵权责任,为权利人提供及时有效的救济。对此,可考虑在专利法中制定专门条款,或以司法解释明确规则,吸收"控制或指导"理论和实践经验,淡化各方的主观意思联络要件、强调其行为的客观关联,追究实施方法专利流程中关键步骤的主要控制人,尤其是明知相关软件在他人的方法专利实施中具有关键作用而将其内置于自己生产销售的设备中的行为人之直接侵权责任。     

我国专利无效宣告制度的不足及其完善

专利无效宣告制度的现存不足,主要在于相关法律法规对无效宣告各类程序的期限规定不完善,行政审查和司法审理的专业性和规范化程度不足,以及无效宣告进程严重影响侵权纠纷的解决.专利无效行政审查是行政职权实现的必要方式,专利无效行政诉讼具有监督行政权力运行和保护行政行为各方主体权益的特殊功能.结合该制度的国际发展趋势,应当维持无...     

NPE诉讼的价值审视与规制选择

专利非实施主体(NPE)从产生之初便备受争议。NPE诉讼作为NPE存在的行为逻辑,游离于专利投机与专利运营、权利滥用与正当维权、谋取私利与损害救济、抑制创新与价值实现之间。立足于NPE诉讼具有利弊互见的基本定位,对NPE诉讼的行政规制,须对专利聚合状态加以合理限制,对涉及标准必要专利的NPE经营者集中审查及NPE禁令救济的反垄断执法亦应保持行政介入的谦抑性;对NPE诉讼的司法规制,应结合具体案情,综合利用法院在专利侵权赔偿数额、损害赔偿与停止侵权的替代适用、诉讼费用的转移等方面所具有的司法裁量空间,在保障专利诉权正当行使的同时,亦应防止司法工具化趋向,防止NPE诉讼异化为谋取不当利益、进行禁令劫持的手段。     

对中外专利商标司法救济模式的调查分析和比较研究(下)

基于对我国的行政行为效力理论、诉讼机制、法院组织机构以及内部审理组织设置等因素的现状的分析,目前契合于我国制度背景的司法救济模式只能是在坚持固有的案件性质和法院审理组织之间一一对应的前提下,由行政审判庭审理专利复审委和商标评审委为被告的行政案件。     

专利价值之谜及其理论求解

在当今专利制度中,尽管多数专利的价值往往少于专利申请和维持的费用,但专利申请案和授权量却急剧增长。这被称之为专利价值之谜,其理论求解应从专利获取的目的出发。竞争者之所以通过申请大量专利的方式形成专利组合,是因为它既是竞争者的防卫之盾,也是其进攻之矛。非竞争者所拥有的专利组合备受人们指责;但事实上,非实施企业拥有的专利质量大都可靠。此外,大量专利的形成是专利制度为鼓励专利竞赛有意而为的结果。因为由大量专利结合而成的专利组合能够区分市场上真正的创新者和模仿者,从而保障创新者的竞争优势。我国应该采取合理的措施鼓励我国的创新企业形成自己的专利组合。     

对假冒专利罪的澄清

《专利法》对假冒他人专利行为与侵犯专利实施权的行为作了严格区分 ,然而有关假冒专利罪的刑法学通说割裂了《刑法》与《专利法》之间的联系 ,混淆了假冒他人专利行为与侵犯专利实施权的行为的界线 ,从而得出了错误的结论。对假冒专利罪应当采用系统解释方法 ,根据假冒他人专利行为在《专利法》中的固有含义予以解释。     

遏制专利蟑螂——评美国专利新政及其对中国的启示

2013年6月4日,美国奥巴马政府宣布了旨在打击专利蟑螂、提高专利质量、促进专利创新的5项行政措施和7项立法意见。同一天,总统行政办公室发布报告《专利主张与美国创新》,描述并分析了采取立法及行政措施的必要性。美国国会2012年和2013年两度提出旨在遏制专利蟑螂恶意诉讼的《保护高技术创新者免遭恶意诉讼法案》。这些举措,意味着美国正在推行专利新政。结合中国国情,提出以下6项建议:(1)建立知识产权危机预警机制;(2)提高专利审查质量;(3)跟踪专利实施情况;(4)健全专利服务体系;(5)加强知识产权领域反垄断规制;(6)限定专利诉讼主体资格。     

美国专利蟑螂的新近立法评析及其启示

专利蟑螂已经成为美国专利制度中一个十分严峻的问题,美国政府不断出台专利法修订草案和政策,意图遏制专利蟑螂,并取得了不错的成效。然而,从近期美国参众两院提交的诸项法案来看,尽管存在分歧,但其整体立场已经发生明显转变,倾向于优待专利蟑螂。由此,以设立双方复审程序、提高禁令颁发标准以及限制司法管辖为代表的诸多重要专利司法改革成果,都将可能遭到弱化。结合美国的经验教训,我国应当尽早认识专利蟑螂并着手应对,从考察开放许可专利实施情况、增加"权利人商业模式"作为判赔考量因素、细化司法管辖规则、完善专利无效制度以及构建全面打击专利假冒行为制度等多个维度,预防和遏制专利蟑螂。     

专利侵权损害赔偿的要件及其举证责任——以《侵权责任法》为切入点

专利侵权领域的证明责任分配已成为学界和实务的焦点和难点之一,专利侵权损害赔偿诉讼举证责任的整体研究并不多见。要产生专利侵权损害赔偿请求权,至少须满足侵权人的过错、侵害专利权的事实、损害事实、因果关系四个要件。在举证责任分配上,原告应当对创设请求权基础的法律规范的事实要件承担证明责任,而被告对权利妨碍、权利消灭和权利受制规范的事实要件承担证明责任。专利侵权损害赔偿请求权各构成要件事实的证明,应根据专利权及专利侵权的特点,依据《专利法》等实体法的规定具体确定。     

case Report —: BT HYPERLINK PATENT DISPUTE — DID BT INVENT THE HYPERLINK? OBVIOUSLY NOT AS THE US COURTS HAVE SAID SO

On 13 December 2000, British Telecom (BT) filed what must be one of the more unlikely patent infringement actions to have come before the courts recently. As a result of a routine review of its global patent portfolio, BT made the somewhat serendipitous discovery that it owns an old US patent which, according to BT, covers the concept of hyperlinking. The patent was granted in 1989 and is due to run until 2006. Similar patents were filed around the world, but have all now expired. This article explores the passage of the dispute in the US courts and explains how BT’s case came to flounder at the first hurdle.     

The EPO as patent law‐maker in Europe

This article examines the role of the European Patent Organisation (EPO) in the European patent system. It shows how the delineation of European patent law has been handed over by governments to an autonomous, quasi‐judicial technocracy at the EPO and reveals how the process of hollowing out economic and political factors in the grant of patents is assisted by the deference of national courts to the EPO and the creation of the Unified Patent Court. It suggests that these developments pose a threat to democratic governance of the patent system in Europe because the delineation of intellectual property rights has inherent economic and political dimensions which are not reducible to technical legal issues of interpretation or technocratic expertise.     

我国专利间接侵权的困境及立法建议

为保护专利权人的合法利益,适应经济生活的客观需求,我国应对专利间接侵权做出明确规定,而不宜适用共同侵权规则。侵权责任法作为民事权利保护的基本法,对间接侵权应该有一个抽象概括的规定,以使专利法等法律规定的间接侵权有一个上位法的依据。而且,专利法对专利间接侵权的构成要件也应做出详细规定,以区别于专利直接侵权和专利共同侵权。     

技术在先使用与专利权冲突的探讨

在我国专利法中,仅对外观设计专利,在第23条规定了授予专利权的外观设计不得与他人在先取得的合法权利相冲突,而对发明和实用新型专利没有做出明确规定。这是否意味着对于发明专利和实用新型专利不存在在先权原则制约?如果对此两类专利不存在在先权制约,如何理解适用专利法第63条第2款规定的,在专利申请日前已经制造相同产品、使用相同方法或者已经做好制造、使用的必要准备,并且仅在原有的范围内继续制造、使用的不视为侵犯专利权?不视为侵权的行为属于对专利权的合理使用还是专利权的取得不得损害他人在先权利?不解决上述问题,就无法分清实践中专利技术的在先使用和专利侵权的界限,由此可能导致截然不同的法律后果。以程序法的视角和保护知识产权国际公约协定确立的基本原则为背景,从明确保护专利技术的在先使用权、专利技术在先使用权抗辩专利权的法律适用、专利技术在先使用权的效力地位及保护途径三个方面来探讨解决上述问题。     

论我国法院判定专利权效力的界限——专利无效判断方式的原则与例外

学界对于专利侵权纠纷与确权纠纷解决“双轨制构造”批评颇多,有关问题的解决思路也争议良多、尚难以达成统一意见。专利法需要改革,但改革离不开理论支撑,不可违背基本法理“自说自话”。学者们尚未足够重视专利权有效性推定对于专利无效判断方式所带来的影响。明晰“双轨制构造”背后存在的法理基础,为专利法改革提供基础理论支持,显得尤为重要。在现有的法理基础上进行专利法改革,法院原则上应充分尊重专利局的确权职能,只有在例外的情况下,也即当然无效的情形下才能直接判定专利权效力。     

专利技术的在先使用问题研究

在我国专利法中 ,仅对外观设计专利 ,第二十三条规定明确了授予专利权的外观设计不得与他人在先取得的合法权利相冲突 ,而对发明和实用新型专利没有做出明确规定。这是否意味着对于发明专利和实用新型专利不存在在先权原则制约 ?如果对此两类专利不存在在先权制约 ,如何理解适用专利法第六十三条第二款规定的 ,在专利申请日前已经制造相同产品、使用相同方法或者已经做好制造、使用的必要准备 ,并且仅在原有的范围内继续制造、使用的不视为侵犯专利权 ?不视为侵权的行为属于对专利权的合理使用还是专利权的取得不得损害他人在先权利 ?不解决上述问题 ,就无法分清实践中专利技术的在先使用和专利侵权的界限 ,由此可能导致截然不同的法律后果。本文作者以程序法的视角和保护知识产权国际公约协定确立的基本原则为背景 ,从明确保护专利技术的在先使用权、专利技术在先使用权抗辩专利权的法律适用、专利技术在先使用权的效力地位及保护途径三个方面来探讨解决上述问题。     

Trade Secrecy Injunctions,Disclosure Risks,and eBay's Influence

Historically, intellectual property (IP) owners could rely on injunctive remedies to prevent continued infringement. The Supreme Court's eBay v. MercExchange decision changed this, however. After eBay, patent courts no longer apply presumptions that push the deliberative scales in favor of injunctions (or “property rule” protection). Instead, patent injunctions require a careful four‐factor analysis, where plaintiffs must demonstrate irreparable injury (i.e., that money damages cannot compensate). Without question, eBay has made it harder for patent plaintiffs to secure injunctions, and has led many district courts to consider innovation policy concerns (e.g., the strategic behavior of patent “troll” plaintiffs) in the injunction calculus. By and large, courts’ more deliberative approach to patent injunctions post‐eBay has been viewed as beneficial for the patent system. Over the past decade, eBay’s influence has migrated to other areas of IP. This article offers the first account of eBay’s impact on federal trade secrecy injunctions. Important differences between trade secret law and other areas of IP—for example, the hard‐to‐quantify risk that disclosure poses to trade secret owners—has lessened eBay’s influence on trade secrecy injunctions. This article argues that disclosure risks justify a bifurcated approach to trade secrecy injunctions. That is, in cases involving the dissemination of trade secrets, courts should presume irreparable injury in the injunction calculus. However, in cases involving the unauthorized use of a trade secret—that is, where a defendant builds upon a plaintiff's trade secret but does not disseminate it—courts should not presume irreparable harm and, instead, should apply the eBay framework. As part of this assessment, courts should consider policy concerns related to cumulative innovation and employee mobility.     

Patent litigation insurance and R&D incentives

A major policy concern regarding patenting activity is related to the actual enforceability of the patents granted by Patent Offices. The risk of facing elevated legal costs to defend patent rights can affect ex-ante incentives to invest in R&D. This paper analyses whether the availability of insurance policies that cover legal expenditures for patent litigation could increase the appropriability of the innovation. We model a situation in which an incumbent innovator is endowed with a valid patent and an entrant imitator can either directly enter the market or try to apply for a patent, hoping that an error will be made by the Patent Office. The incumbent can accommodate the entrant, file a suit to a civil court or offer a settlement agreement. We model the presence of heterogeneity in the risk that the patents will face an error by both patent examiners at Patent Offices and judges at civil court. We analyse the changes in expected profits for the innovator when given the possibility of buying an insurance policy which will cover legal costs in the event of trial. We compare the cases in which (i) coverage is voluntary and the insurer can discriminate perfectly between risky patents; (ii) coverage is voluntary and the insurer cannot discriminate between patents, and (iii) coverage is compulsory. The model highlights a set of peculiar strategic characteristics of insurance for legal expenditures which contribute to singling out the reasons underlying the underdevelopment of this market. We suggest that the crucial reason for such a failure is not adverse selection; consequently, we challenge the benefits of making coverage compulsory.