专利抵触申请制度研究

The Study of the patent conflicting application system

传播影响力
本库下载频次:
本库浏览频次:
CNKI下载频次:0

作者:

王怀宾

导师:

张惠彬

导师单位:

民商法学院

学位:

硕士

语种:

中文

关键词:

抵触申请;占有;专利法传统;先申请原则;先发明原则

摘要:

抵触申请是指在后申请的申请日在在先申请的申请日之后、公开日之前,如果两项专利申请相同,在先申请将阻碍在后申请的可专利性。抵触申请规则作为专利实体规则的一部分,将会影响到专利授权。我国抵触申请制度总体上学习了欧洲,以先申请原则构建具体规则。在经历专利法数次修改之后,仍有部分问题有待明确。一是未明确抵触申请的独立性质,其与现有技术、禁止重复授权原则的关系有待厘清;二是抵触申请的新颖性判断是否合适,创造性测试能否纳入;三是抵触申请抗辩的合理性仍然存疑;四是发明或实用新型与外观设计能否互相抵触。此外还包括PCT抵触申请公开要件的时间等问题需要明确。上述问题在国际层面也同样存在,并阻碍了抵触申请制度的进一步发展。现有研究缺少对抵触申请制度的法理分析,实践中表现为打补丁式的调整,缺乏制度稳健性,也不符合成熟制度发展的趋势。本文采用了历史、比较和经济学分析方法,以抵触申请制度溯源和制度发展的历史梳理、构成要素的比较分析为佐证,探析抵触申请制度发展中的价值分歧,以占有理论和成本分析为支撑点,为完善抵触申请制度提出建议。 除引言和结语外,本文共分为五个部分。 第一部分是抵触申请制度溯源和制度发展史分析。首先溯源制度历史,通过分析美国和英国的第一判例和抵触申请规则,厘清先发明原则和先申请原则的不同专利法传统如何影响法官作出裁判和立法者的立法意图。其次梳理制度发展进程,全面剖析美国、欧洲和WIPO三种主要模式发展的历史立法资料,揭露抵触申请制度发展过程中的规则博弈和模式分歧,并指出抵触申请制度在国际协调和模式塑造的过程中所展现的理念冲突。 第二部分是抵触申请制度构成要素分析。将抵触申请制度分为主体、适用范围、功能、时间等多个要素进行比较分析,同时还将不同要素的组合进行了分析,并形成了主要的9种抵触申请既有方案和潜在的新方案。该章节的内容包括两部分,一是每个要素的具体规则、代表性国家(地区)以及我国的实践;二是每个要素内部不同方案的优劣比较和价值分析。 第三部分是分析抵触申请制度的价值分歧。主要分歧在于专利法传统和公共政策目标。前者表现为先发明原则重视在先申请人(第一发明人)利益,并将抵触申请纳入现有技术,足以破坏在后申请的新颖性和创造性,而先申请原则平等看待在先申请人和在后申请人,并否定未公开的在先申请构成现有技术,不能破坏在后申请的创造性;后者表现为各国立法者会基于公共政策考量而增减、删改抵触申请规则,以解决不同创新环境下的具体问题。 第四部分是抵触申请制度的法理澄清。专利法传统和公共政策目标的路径依赖严重束缚了抵触申请制度的发展,而从专利法作为财产法的视角溯源专利制度的基本法理——占有理论。基于占有理论与专利制度的契合分析,以先占构建占有的形式、占有的成本分析以及专利动态占有,为制度完善提供理论基础。 第五部分是对策建议。首先梳理我国抵触申请制度的发展和现状,分析我国抵触申请制度发展中的问题,指出根源主要在于未能从抵触申请制度的深层次法理出发明确抵触申请制度的性质、功能等。其次基于前述占有理论重塑抵触申请制度,并对抵触申请的性质、功能、抵触申请抗辩、互相抵触以及其他因素进行澄清,期望在抵触申请理论中开辟专利法传统和公共政策目标的第三个讨论空间。

提交日期

2023-06-16

引用参考

王怀宾. 专利抵触申请制度研究[D]. 西南政法大学,2023.

全文附件授权许可

知识共享许可协议-署名

  • dc.title
  • 专利抵触申请制度研究
  • dc.title
  • The Study of the patent conflicting application system
  • dc.contributor.schoolno
  • 20200351011305
  • dc.contributor.author
  • 王怀宾
  • dc.contributor.affiliation
  • 民商法学院
  • dc.contributor.degree
  • 硕士
  • dc.contributor.childdegree
  • 法律硕士专业学位
  • dc.contributor.degreeConferringInstitution
  • 西南政法大学
  • dc.identifier.year
  • 2023
  • dc.contributor.direction
  • 知识产权法
  • dc.contributor.advisor
  • 张惠彬
  • dc.contributor.advisorAffiliation
  • 民商法学院
  • dc.language.iso
  • 中文
  • dc.subject
  • 抵触申请,占有,专利法传统,先申请原则,先发明原则
  • dc.subject
  • conflicting application; possession; patent law tradition; first-to-file principle; first-to-invent principle
  • dc.description.abstract
  • 抵触申请是指在后申请的申请日在在先申请的申请日之后、公开日之前,如果两项专利申请相同,在先申请将阻碍在后申请的可专利性。抵触申请规则作为专利实体规则的一部分,将会影响到专利授权。我国抵触申请制度总体上学习了欧洲,以先申请原则构建具体规则。在经历专利法数次修改之后,仍有部分问题有待明确。一是未明确抵触申请的独立性质,其与现有技术、禁止重复授权原则的关系有待厘清;二是抵触申请的新颖性判断是否合适,创造性测试能否纳入;三是抵触申请抗辩的合理性仍然存疑;四是发明或实用新型与外观设计能否互相抵触。此外还包括PCT抵触申请公开要件的时间等问题需要明确。上述问题在国际层面也同样存在,并阻碍了抵触申请制度的进一步发展。现有研究缺少对抵触申请制度的法理分析,实践中表现为打补丁式的调整,缺乏制度稳健性,也不符合成熟制度发展的趋势。本文采用了历史、比较和经济学分析方法,以抵触申请制度溯源和制度发展的历史梳理、构成要素的比较分析为佐证,探析抵触申请制度发展中的价值分歧,以占有理论和成本分析为支撑点,为完善抵触申请制度提出建议。 除引言和结语外,本文共分为五个部分。 第一部分是抵触申请制度溯源和制度发展史分析。首先溯源制度历史,通过分析美国和英国的第一判例和抵触申请规则,厘清先发明原则和先申请原则的不同专利法传统如何影响法官作出裁判和立法者的立法意图。其次梳理制度发展进程,全面剖析美国、欧洲和WIPO三种主要模式发展的历史立法资料,揭露抵触申请制度发展过程中的规则博弈和模式分歧,并指出抵触申请制度在国际协调和模式塑造的过程中所展现的理念冲突。 第二部分是抵触申请制度构成要素分析。将抵触申请制度分为主体、适用范围、功能、时间等多个要素进行比较分析,同时还将不同要素的组合进行了分析,并形成了主要的9种抵触申请既有方案和潜在的新方案。该章节的内容包括两部分,一是每个要素的具体规则、代表性国家(地区)以及我国的实践;二是每个要素内部不同方案的优劣比较和价值分析。 第三部分是分析抵触申请制度的价值分歧。主要分歧在于专利法传统和公共政策目标。前者表现为先发明原则重视在先申请人(第一发明人)利益,并将抵触申请纳入现有技术,足以破坏在后申请的新颖性和创造性,而先申请原则平等看待在先申请人和在后申请人,并否定未公开的在先申请构成现有技术,不能破坏在后申请的创造性;后者表现为各国立法者会基于公共政策考量而增减、删改抵触申请规则,以解决不同创新环境下的具体问题。 第四部分是抵触申请制度的法理澄清。专利法传统和公共政策目标的路径依赖严重束缚了抵触申请制度的发展,而从专利法作为财产法的视角溯源专利制度的基本法理——占有理论。基于占有理论与专利制度的契合分析,以先占构建占有的形式、占有的成本分析以及专利动态占有,为制度完善提供理论基础。 第五部分是对策建议。首先梳理我国抵触申请制度的发展和现状,分析我国抵触申请制度发展中的问题,指出根源主要在于未能从抵触申请制度的深层次法理出发明确抵触申请制度的性质、功能等。其次基于前述占有理论重塑抵触申请制度,并对抵触申请的性质、功能、抵触申请抗辩、互相抵触以及其他因素进行澄清,期望在抵触申请理论中开辟专利法传统和公共政策目标的第三个讨论空间。
  • dc.description.abstract
  • A conflicting application is one in which the filing date of the later application is after the filing date of the earlier application and before the disclosure date, and the earlier application will prevent the patentability of the later application if the two patent applications are identical. The rules of conflicting applications, as part of the substantive patent rules, will affect the grant of a patent. China's conflicting application system has generally learned from Europe, with specific rules constructed on the first-to-file principle. After several amendments to the Patent Law, there are still some issues to be clarified. First, the independent nature of the conflicting application has not been clarified, and its relationship with the prior art and the principle of prohibition of repeated authorization has to be clarified; second, whether the novelty of the conflicting application is appropriate, and whether the inventive step test can be incorporated; third, the reasonableness of the conflicting application defense is still in doubt; fourth, whether inventions or utility models and designs can be contradicted against each other. In addition, there is a need to clarify the timing of the disclosure of the elements of a PCT infringement application. The above problems also exist at the international level and have hindered the further development of the conflicting application system. The existing research lacks a jurisprudential analysis of the conflicting application system, and in practice, it shows a patchy adjustment, which lacks institutional robustness and is not in line with the trend of mature system development. This paper adopts a historical, comparative and economic analysis approach to explore the divergent values in the development of the conflicting application system, using the historical combing of the conflicting application system and the development of the system, and the comparative analysis of the constituent elements as supporting evidence, and to make suggestions for improving the conflicting application system, using possession theory and cost analysis as supporting points. In addition to the introduction and epilogue, this paper is divided into five parts. The first part is a retrospective analysis of the conflicting application system and the history of the system's development. Firstly, we trace the history of the system and analyze the first jurisprudence of the United States and the United Kingdom and the rules of conflicting applications to clarify how the different patent law traditions of the first-to-invent principle and the first-to-file principle affect the judges' decisions and the legislators' legislative intent. Secondly, we analyze the development process of the system, comprehensively analyze the historical legislative data of the three major models in the United States, Europe and WIPO, expose the game of rules and divergent models in the development of the system of conflicting applications, and point out the conceptual conflicts in the process of international coordination and model shaping of the system of conflicting applications. The second part is an analysis of the constituent elements of the conflicting application system. The conflicting application system is divided into several elements such as subject, scope of application, function, and time for comparative analysis, and also the combination of different elements is analyzed, and the main nine established and potential new options for conflicting application are formed. The content of this part includes two major parts: first, the specific rules of each element, representative countries (regions) and our practice; second, the comparison of the advantages and disadvantages of different schemes within each element and the value analysis. The third part is an analysis of the reasons for the divergence of conflicting application systems. It mainly lies in the differences between the tradition of patent law and public policy objectives. The former manifests itself in the fact that the first-to-invent doctrine attaches importance to the interests of the prior applicant (first inventor) and incorporates the conflicting application into the prior art, which is sufficient to destroy the novelty and inventiveness of the subsequent application, while the first-to-file doctrine treats the prior applicant and the subsequent applicant equally and denies that the undisclosed prior application constitutes prior art and cannot destroy the inventiveness of the subsequent application; the latter manifests itself in the fact that legislators in various countries will, based on public policy considerations The latter is reflected in the fact that national legislators may add, subtract, or delete the rules of conflicting applications based on public policy considerations, in order to solve specific problems in different innovation environments. The fourth part is the jurisprudential clarification of the conflicting application system. The path dependence of patent law tradition and public policy objectives has severely constrained the development of the conflicting application system, and the basic jurisprudence of the patent system - the theory of possession - is traced from the perspective of patent law as property law. Based on the analysis of the fit between the possession theory and the patent system, the form of possession is constructed by preemption, the analysis of the cost of possession and the dynamic possession of patents to provide the theoretical basis for the improvement of the system. The fifth part is the countermeasure suggestion. Firstly, it compares the development and current situation of China's conflicting application system, analyzes the problems in the development of China's conflicting application system, and points out that the root cause mainly lies in the failure to clarify the nature and function of the conflicting application system from the deep-seated jurisprudence of the conflicting application system. Secondly, based on the aforementioned possession theory, we reshape the conflicting application system and clarify the nature, function, conflicting application defense, mutual conflicting and other factors of the conflicting application, expecting to open up a third space of discussion on the tradition of patent law and public policy objectives in the theory of conflicting application.
  • dc.date.issued
  • 2023-03-16
  • dc.date.oralDefense
  • 2023-05-28
回到顶部