知识产权诉讼中技术调查官制度的困境与出路
|
摘要
技术事实的查明是知识产权诉讼案件中难以回避的问题,新设置的技术调查官制度为破解相关技术难题提供了保障,有助于发掘知识产权诉讼的案件真实,进而提升纠纷解决质效。在司法实践中,技术调查官制度遭遇了选任与管理不明、参与诉讼活动的程序不规范、与司法鉴定制度不协调等困境。为克服上述不足,有必要从选任标准与管理办法的构建、诉讼程序的法定和公开、从内而外协调与司法鉴定制度的关系等三个层面加以完善,充分发挥该制度在查明案件技术事实方面的积极性,以助益知识产权诉讼在科技创新领域有效发挥司法保障职能。
The identification of technical facts is an unavoidable problem in the case of intellectual property litigation. The newly established technical ombudsman system provides a guarantee for solving the related technical problems, which will help to discover the truth of the case of intellectual property litigation and improve the quality of the case trial. In judicial practice, the system of technical investigation officers has encountered difficulties such as unidentified selection and management, non standard procedure for participating in litigation activities, and in coordination with judicial authentication system. In order to overcome the above shortcomings, it is necessary to perfect the three levels, such as the construction of the elective standards and management methods, the legal and public litigation procedures, the relationship between the internal and external coordination and the judicial identification system, so as to give full play to the enthusiasm of the system in identifying the technical facts of the cases, so as to help the intellectual property litigation in the scientific and technological innovation.
The identification of technical facts is an unavoidable problem in the case of intellectual property litigation. The newly established technical ombudsman system provides a guarantee for solving the related technical problems, which will help to discover the truth of the case of intellectual property litigation and improve the quality of the case trial. In judicial practice, the system of technical investigation officers has encountered difficulties such as unidentified selection and management, non standard procedure for participating in litigation activities, and in coordination with judicial authentication system. In order to overcome the above shortcomings, it is necessary to perfect the three levels, such as the construction of the elective standards and management methods, the legal and public litigation procedures, the relationship between the internal and external coordination and the judicial identification system, so as to give full play to the enthusiasm of the system in identifying the technical facts of the cases, so as to help the intellectual property litigation in the scientific and technological innovation.
引文
[1]宋晓明.大力推动知识产权审判现代化为科技创新提供有力司法保障[N].人民法院报,2018-4-25(7).
[2]周湘雄.英美专家证人制度研究[M].北京:中国检察出版社,2006:3.
[3]马振军.专家证人走进法庭[N].新安晚报,2003-1-11(2).
[4]强刚华.试论中国知识产权法院技术调查官制度的建构[J].电子知识产权,2014(10):84-90.
[5]李永泉.功能主义视角下专家辅助人诉讼地位再认识[J].现代法学,2018(1):157-167.
[6]张慧颖,邢彦.知识产权保护、外国直接投资与中国出口技术进步研究:基于行业特征的实证分析[J].中国科技论坛,2018(8):119-128.
[7]许波,仪军.我国技术调查官制度的构建与完善[J].知识产权,2016(3):76-80.
[8]仪军,李青.我国知识产权领域技术调查官选任问题探析[J].专利代理,2017(1):7-13.
[9]杨严炎.论民事诉讼突袭性裁判的防止:以现代庭审理论的应用为中心[J].中国法学,2016(4):266-286.
[10]蔡学恩.技术调查官与鉴定专家的分殊与共存[J].法律适用,2015(5):90-93.
[11]胡庆甲.美国专家证据可采性标准在反垄断司法中的适用及其启示[J].中外法学,2011(3):626-647.
[12]徐继军.专家证人研究[M].北京:中国人民大学出版社,2004:42-43.
[13]王志雄.技术调查官的社会分工意蕴与制度完善研究[J].贵州社会科学,2017(8):59-63.
[14]蔡学恩.技术调查官与鉴定专家的分殊与共存[J].法律适用,2015(5):90-93.
[15]宋鱼水.知识产权审判的商业思维与技术判断[J].中国发明与专利,2018(8):69-79.
[2]周湘雄.英美专家证人制度研究[M].北京:中国检察出版社,2006:3.
[3]马振军.专家证人走进法庭[N].新安晚报,2003-1-11(2).
[4]强刚华.试论中国知识产权法院技术调查官制度的建构[J].电子知识产权,2014(10):84-90.
[5]李永泉.功能主义视角下专家辅助人诉讼地位再认识[J].现代法学,2018(1):157-167.
[6]张慧颖,邢彦.知识产权保护、外国直接投资与中国出口技术进步研究:基于行业特征的实证分析[J].中国科技论坛,2018(8):119-128.
[7]许波,仪军.我国技术调查官制度的构建与完善[J].知识产权,2016(3):76-80.
[8]仪军,李青.我国知识产权领域技术调查官选任问题探析[J].专利代理,2017(1):7-13.
[9]杨严炎.论民事诉讼突袭性裁判的防止:以现代庭审理论的应用为中心[J].中国法学,2016(4):266-286.
[10]蔡学恩.技术调查官与鉴定专家的分殊与共存[J].法律适用,2015(5):90-93.
[11]胡庆甲.美国专家证据可采性标准在反垄断司法中的适用及其启示[J].中外法学,2011(3):626-647.
[12]徐继军.专家证人研究[M].北京:中国人民大学出版社,2004:42-43.
[13]王志雄.技术调查官的社会分工意蕴与制度完善研究[J].贵州社会科学,2017(8):59-63.
[14]蔡学恩.技术调查官与鉴定专家的分殊与共存[J].法律适用,2015(5):90-93.
[15]宋鱼水.知识产权审判的商业思维与技术判断[J].中国发明与专利,2018(8):69-79.