WTO框架下完善我国知识产权滥用规制制度的若干思考

防止滥用知识产权是WTO框架下的TRIPs协议确立的一项基本原则。我国对于知识产权滥用的规制既要充分利用TRIPs给予成员的立法空间,又要符合TRIPs协议的要求。我们应该就TRIPs协议中已经规定的对限制竞争行为的禁止、专利强制许可、滥用知识产权执法程序等几个方面来建立和完善规制知识产权滥用的制度,以全面履行TRIPs协议。     

论专利说明书对权利要求保护范围的解释作用——客观主义与主观主义的博弈为视角

由于专利制度以公开换取垄断的契约作为理论基础,故可以从合同角度,以客观主义与主观主义的博弈关系入手分析权利要求保护范围解释的法理基础。权利要求保护范围的解释需要具备一定的前提条件。只有在权利要求的术语存在特定含义、或者说明书明确放弃某些技术方案、或者权利要求所包含的某些技术方案无法实现、或者权利要求的术语存在多种含义等情况下,才应当对权利要求进行解释。如果权利要求可能有多种解释方法,应当采用能够将实施例包括在内的解释,即权利要求解释的结果应当能够将实施例包含在保护范围之内。在综合考虑所要解决的技术问题和所能达到的技术效果后,明显不能成立的技术方案不应解释在权利要求的保护范围之内。     

美式FTA中与药品专利有关的超TRIPs条款研究

在有关TRIPs的谈判中,发达国家未能实现其所有目的,虽屡次试图加强TRIPS的保护水平,却总是成效甚微。鉴于此,双边自由贸易协定,而非多边条约,成为了他们新一轮努力的重点。在这方面,美国无愧于其中“翘楚”,其近年所为,对“超TRIPs条款”的扩张起了推波助澜作用。这使发达国家得以规避TRIPS中有利于较不发达国家的规定,并为进一步制定不平等国际规范奠定了基础。文章主要分析了美式FTA中与药品专利有关的超TRIPS务款,以证明上述观点,并提请发展中国家注意国际知识产权立法中的这一双边趋势及其潜在的不利影响。     

The “process” of patenting: Why should we care about a potential U.S. Supreme Court decision in Bilski v. Doll?

In Bilski v. Doll, the U.S. Supreme Court is called to define one of the categories of patent-eligible subject matter, “process” patents. In 2008, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that the category has a narrow meaning, and that to be eligible for a process patent under 35 U.S.C. § 101, the invention must involve a machine or apparatus or involve a transformation to a different state or thing, ultimately rejecting the patent application as unpatentable subject matter. The patent applicants have asked the U.S. Supreme Court to determine two issues: first, the meaning of “process” in 35 U.S.C. § 101 and whether the lower court properly relied on a “machine-or-transformation” test, and second, the test's potential conflict with 35 U.S.C. § 273, which provides protection for “method[s] of doing or conducting business.” The Court's decision could change the way that research and business are done, and patent protection for such investments. Parts 1 and 2 of this article address Bilski directly and what is and is not in dispute. Part 3 addresses the “machine-or-transformation” test, while Parts 4 and 5 address reasons not to adopt such a test.     

Does mobility increase the productivity of inventors?

Although labor mobility has been recognized as a key mechanism for transferring tacit knowledge, prior research on inventors has so far hardly discussed the impact of a move on inventive performance. Additionally, existing research has neglected the differences in gains from a move between high and lower performing inventors. This paper adds to the current R&D literature by presenting a jointly estimated quantile regression to compare the coefficients of the explanatory variables at different points of the performance distribution. Additionally, dummy variables are used to compare inventive performance prior and in the aftermath of a move. Results reveal that inventors at the upper end of the performance distribution are better able to benefit from a move to draw level with or to overtake non-movers in the post-move period. Whereas at the bottom of the performance distribution a higher level of education has a positive impact on inventive performance, education does not matter significantly at the upper end of the performance distribution. Data for the analysis was derived from a survey of German inventors (N = 3,049).

专利授权行为的法律性质

专利制度需要改革,譬如我国的专利无效程序因其环节多等原因而颇受学者非议。然,专利制度改革需要理论的支持。专利授权行为的性质是专利法中的重要课题,对专利制度的选择具有重要意义。否弃行政许可行为理论,重构专利授权行为理论,认定其为司法性行政行为,这对专利制度改革和实践具有重要意义。     

保险产品的知识产权属性及其保护

目前我国金融市场还不完善,不少金融机构法律意识淡薄,相互抄袭导致产品同质化现象严重,不利于产品创新。对金融产品授予知识产权是保护金融主体利益的有效手段之一。以保险产品为例,著作权和商标权对产品可提供保护但不充分,通过专利权加以保护更为有效。保险产品符合专利权保护对象的属性要求,既具有技术特征,也具有创造性、新颖性和实用性。目前国内已有保险企业提交产品专利申请,但对比中外保险企业对保险产品开发及知识产权保护的差距,笔者认为我国应加强此方面的制度建设与相关实践,以维护金融市场秩序。     

利益平衡原则的轮回：美国专利法发展之历程及启示

专利权是天然的垄断性权利,因而极易被滥用,对促进市场竞争和阻碍科学发展具有双刃剑的作用,其制度核心在于价值界定的科学与合理。从专利权的垄断利益与公共利益相互平衡的视角切入。对美国专利法200多年的发展历程中利益平衡原则的轮曰进行梳理,借鉴美国立法经验借鉴,对我国专利立法确立专利权法律保护与限制恰当的平衡点来中和专利权的天生缺陷是有必要的。     

专利行政部门在开放许可制度中应有的职能

专利开放许可制度在国外已实施百年,专利行政部门的服务职能有逐步强化的趋势。借鉴国外经验并结合我国具体情况看,我国应坚持专利许可制度的自愿性,专利行政部门的职能宜以服务为主,并可在适当范围内就争议进行裁决。专利法修改方案中应规定开放许可合同必须备案,强化专利行政部门的登记职能;限定专利行政部门的裁决内容并明确其裁决程序;要求专利行政部门发布《专利开放许可指南》,丰富和细化其服务内容。