美国专利权穷竭制度及其借鉴
|
摘要
我国专利制度自建立以来,经过二十多年的发展已趋于完善,在完善专利立法、加强专利保护水平上取得了很大的成就；但真正完善的专利保护制度还应当包含对专利权的正当限制。与以美国为代表的专利保护发达国家相比,我国在专利权限制方面还需要做更多的努力。
专利权穷竭制度作为对专利权进行限制的制度之一,由默示许可理论发展而来,在美国专利侵权抗辩中发挥着很重要的作用。专利权穷竭制度最早在美国通过判例确定下来,经过一百多年的发展,其内容出现了很多变化；2008年美国联邦最高法院对Quanta案的判决再次扩大了专利权穷竭制度的适用范围。美国专利权穷竭制度的发展历程及其内容对我国具有很好的借鉴意义：一方面,当前专利丛林现象非常严重,严重影响了企业的发展；另一方面,自从加入世界贸易组织以来,贸易壁垒已经由关税壁垒转变为知识产权壁垒,专利成为国外企业打压中国企业进出口贸易的一项有力措施。通过学习美国的做法,适当地扩大我国专利权穷竭制度的适用范围,可以完善我国的专利制度,有利于提高我国企业应对专利侵权诉讼的能力,从而保护我国企业的合法权益。
在本文中,笔者将从介绍专利权的具体内容、专利权穷竭制度的发展历程和本质开始,运用案例分析法对美国专利权穷竭制度进行介绍,得出专利权穷竭适用范围扩张的条件是已售专利产品部件包含所穷竭专利的实质性技术特征并且没有其他非侵权用途,提出专利权穷竭与默示许可是美国专利侵权诉讼中既有联系又有区别的两种不同的抗辩事由,归纳出在美国售后限制条件可以排除专利权穷竭的适用条件,并结合我国立法司法实践总结我国专利权穷竭制度的适用条件及存在的问题提出立法建议。
Since the patent system established in China, our country have got big achievement in improving patent legislation and strengthening the patent protection after more than twenty years development. But the perfect patent system should contain the proper limits on the exercise of patent rights. Compared with other countries, like America, we should make a lot of efforts to limit the exercise of the patent rights.
Patent exhaustion system is derived from the theory of implied license, and plays an important role in patent infringement defense system of America. Patent exhaustion system was first established through judicial precedent in America, and has changed a lot after a hundred years of development. The judgment of Quanta vs. LGE in 2008 has expanded the scope of application of patent exhaustion. The development process and the content of patent exhaustion in America could be very important reference to China:On the one hand, patent thicket have hindered companies'development. On the other hand, since China entered into the World Trade Organization, the trade barriers have been changed from tariff barriers to intellectual property barriers, patent has become to a powerful measure to suppress Chinese enterprises'imports and exports by foreign enterprises. Through studying U.S.A.'s approach, we get the idea that expanding the scope of application of patent exhaustion in China is benefit to improve the ability of our enterprises to respond to patent infringement litigation and protect the legal rights of our enterprises.
In this paper, the author starts with the introduce of content of patent rights, development history and essence of patent exhaustion, through the analysis of the precedents to introduce the patent exhaustion system in America, and reach a conclusion that the scope of patent exhaustion is expanded when the patented product or components embodies the essential features of the patent and have no other noninfringing uses, suggest that patent exhaustion and implied license are two both linked and differentiated principles in American patent infringement litigation, summarize the conditions when sale restrictions can exclude the application of patent exhaustion in America, summarize the applicable conditions of patent exhaustion in China and problems through analysising the legislative and judicial practice in China, put forward some proposals to the legislation in our country.
专利权穷竭制度作为对专利权进行限制的制度之一,由默示许可理论发展而来,在美国专利侵权抗辩中发挥着很重要的作用。专利权穷竭制度最早在美国通过判例确定下来,经过一百多年的发展,其内容出现了很多变化；2008年美国联邦最高法院对Quanta案的判决再次扩大了专利权穷竭制度的适用范围。美国专利权穷竭制度的发展历程及其内容对我国具有很好的借鉴意义：一方面,当前专利丛林现象非常严重,严重影响了企业的发展；另一方面,自从加入世界贸易组织以来,贸易壁垒已经由关税壁垒转变为知识产权壁垒,专利成为国外企业打压中国企业进出口贸易的一项有力措施。通过学习美国的做法,适当地扩大我国专利权穷竭制度的适用范围,可以完善我国的专利制度,有利于提高我国企业应对专利侵权诉讼的能力,从而保护我国企业的合法权益。
在本文中,笔者将从介绍专利权的具体内容、专利权穷竭制度的发展历程和本质开始,运用案例分析法对美国专利权穷竭制度进行介绍,得出专利权穷竭适用范围扩张的条件是已售专利产品部件包含所穷竭专利的实质性技术特征并且没有其他非侵权用途,提出专利权穷竭与默示许可是美国专利侵权诉讼中既有联系又有区别的两种不同的抗辩事由,归纳出在美国售后限制条件可以排除专利权穷竭的适用条件,并结合我国立法司法实践总结我国专利权穷竭制度的适用条件及存在的问题提出立法建议。
Since the patent system established in China, our country have got big achievement in improving patent legislation and strengthening the patent protection after more than twenty years development. But the perfect patent system should contain the proper limits on the exercise of patent rights. Compared with other countries, like America, we should make a lot of efforts to limit the exercise of the patent rights.
Patent exhaustion system is derived from the theory of implied license, and plays an important role in patent infringement defense system of America. Patent exhaustion system was first established through judicial precedent in America, and has changed a lot after a hundred years of development. The judgment of Quanta vs. LGE in 2008 has expanded the scope of application of patent exhaustion. The development process and the content of patent exhaustion in America could be very important reference to China:On the one hand, patent thicket have hindered companies'development. On the other hand, since China entered into the World Trade Organization, the trade barriers have been changed from tariff barriers to intellectual property barriers, patent has become to a powerful measure to suppress Chinese enterprises'imports and exports by foreign enterprises. Through studying U.S.A.'s approach, we get the idea that expanding the scope of application of patent exhaustion in China is benefit to improve the ability of our enterprises to respond to patent infringement litigation and protect the legal rights of our enterprises.
In this paper, the author starts with the introduce of content of patent rights, development history and essence of patent exhaustion, through the analysis of the precedents to introduce the patent exhaustion system in America, and reach a conclusion that the scope of patent exhaustion is expanded when the patented product or components embodies the essential features of the patent and have no other noninfringing uses, suggest that patent exhaustion and implied license are two both linked and differentiated principles in American patent infringement litigation, summarize the conditions when sale restrictions can exclude the application of patent exhaustion in America, summarize the applicable conditions of patent exhaustion in China and problems through analysising the legislative and judicial practice in China, put forward some proposals to the legislation in our country.
引文
1 Amiram Benyamini在其Patent Infringement in the Euiopean Community书中提到英国是采用这种观点,这也是尹新天学者在其《专利权的保护》一书中所引用的观点(参见尹新天：《专利权的保护》,知识产权出版社,2005年,65页)。
[1]United States v. Univis Lens Co.,316 U.S.241,62 S.Ct.1088 [EB/OL]. http://origin-www.lexisnexis.com/ap/auth/,2009.10.13
[2]Quanta Computer, Inc. v. LG Electronics, Inc.,128 S.Ct.2019,170 L. Ed.2d 996 [EB/OL]. http://origin-www.lexisnexis.com/ap/auth/,2010.10.13
[3]Simon Thorley, Richard Miller, Guy Burkill, etc. Terrell on the Law of Patent [M]. Sweet & Maxwell,2006,7-14
[4]尹新天.专利权的保护[M].北京：知识产权出版社,2005年,65-125
[5]费艳颖、杨超.论专利权之权利用尽原则——以2004年DVD专利费纠纷案为例[J].哈尔滨工业大学学报(社会科学版),2007年(3),73-76
[6]闫宏.专利默示许可规则探析[D].清华大学2007年硕士学位论文
[7]董美根.论专利产品销售所附条件的法律效力[J].华东政法大学学报,2009年(3),53-60
[8]万琦.欧美专利权用尽原则售后限制的比较研究[J].知识产权,2010年(4),91-96
[9]刘春田.知识产权法[M].北京：中国人民大学出版社,2007年,313
[10]严桂珍.我国专利平行进口制度之选择——默示许可[J].政治与法律,2009年(4),83-90
[11]林晓玉.专利商品平行进口的法律制度研究——以美国为中心[D].中央民族大学2006年硕士学位论文
[12]郑胜利、朱理、刘永沛、张名、曾丽、陈沼平、刘思杰.《专利权的限制和例外》国家知识产权局条法司编《<专利法>及<专利法实施细则>第三次修改专题研究报告》(下卷)[R].北京：知识产权山版社,2006,1500-1501
[13]Amiram Benyamini. Patent Infringement in the Euiopean Community [M]. IIC Studies, Vol.13,290
[14]和育东.美国专利权穷竭原则的演变——兼评美最高法院对Quanta v.LG Electronics案的判决[J].电子知识产权,2008年(9),48-51
[15]Bloomer, Inc. v. McQuewan, Inc.,55 U.S.539 (1852) [EB/OL]. http://origin-www.lexisnexis.com/ap/auth/,2009.10.13
[16]Adams v. Burke,84 U.S.453 (1873) [EB/OL]. http://origin-www.lexisnexis.com/ap/auth/,2009.10.13
[17]Keeler v. Standard Folding-Bed Co.,15 S.Ct.738 (1895) [EB/OL]. http://origin-www.lexisnexis.com/ap/auth/.2009.10.13
[18]李扬.知识产权与反垄断法关系的几个特殊问题(上)[J].学习论坛,2008年(1),74-77
[19]Cyrix Corp. v. Intel Corp.846 F. Supp.522.540 (E.D. Tex 1994) [EB/OL]. http.//origin-www.lexisnexis.com/ap/auth/,2010.04.25
[20]Bandag, Inc. v. Al Bolser's Tire Stores, Inc.,750 F.2d 903,924 (Fed. Cir.1984) [EB/OL]. http://origin-www.lexisnexis.com/ap/auth/.2011.03.26.
[21]John W. Osborne. A Coherent View of Patent Exhaustion [J]. Santa Clara Computer and High Technology Law Journal, March,2004 [EB/OL]. http://origin-www.lexisnexis.com/ap/auth/,2010.04.25 Glass Equipment Development. Inc. v. Besten. Inc.,174 F.3d 1337 (1999)
[22][EB/OL]. http://origin-www.lexisnexis.com/ap/auth/,2010.04.25
[23]De Forest Radio Telephone Co. v. United States,273 U.S.236 (1927) [EB/OL]. http://origin-www.lexisnexis.com/ap/auth/,2009.10.13
[24]Jay Dratler, Jr著,王春燕等译.知识产权许可(上)[M].北京：清华大学出版社,2003,184-185,203-225
[25]龙卫球.民法总论[M].北京：中国法制出版社,2002年12月,533
[26]Sidney Henry et al. v. A. B. Dick Company,224 U.S.1,32 S.Ct.364 [EB/OL]. http://origin-www.lexisnexis.com/ap/auth/,2010.04.25
[27]General Talking Pictures Corp. v. Western Elec. Co.,305 U.S.175,58 S.Ct.849,82 L.E.d 1273 (1938) [EB/OL]. http://origin-www.lexisnexis.com/ap/auth/,2010.04.25
[28]Mallinckrodt, Inc. v. Medipart, Inc., and Jerry A. Alexander,976 F.2d 700 (1992) [EB/OL]. http://origin-www.lexisnexis.com/ap/auth/,2010.04.25
[29]Motion Picture Co. v. Universal Film Co.,243 U.S.502 (1917) [EB/OL]. http://origin-www.lexisnexis.com/ap/auth/,2010.04.25
[30]Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Repeat-O-Type Stencil Mfg. Corp.,123 F.3d 1445,1453(Fed. Cir.1997), cert. denied,523 U.S.1022(1998) [EB/OL]. http://origin-www.lexisnexis.com/ap/auth/,2010.04.26
[31]魏振瀛.民法[M].北京：北京大学出版社,高等教育出版社,2007年,761
[32]张黎光诉江苏光芒热水器有限公司、常州苏宁电器有限公司侵犯实用新型专利权纠纷案[EB/OL]. http://ipr.chinacourt.org/public/detail_sfws.php?id=33618,2010.01.08
[33]Pharmon v. Hoechst. [1985] E.C.R..2281 [EB/OL]. http.//origin-www.lexisnexis.com/ap/auth/.2009.10.13
[34]龙年电子(深圳)有限公司广东科龙冰箱有限公司侵犯专利权纠纷一案[EB/OL]. http://ipr.chinacourt.org/public/detail_sfvvs.php?id=4080,2010.04.25
[35]程永顺.专利侵权判定实务[M].北京：法律出版社,2002年,36
[36]陈永江诉湖南金信化工有限公司、西安市兰空航空设备有限责任公司、四川简阳华西技工贸易发展公司专利侵权纠纷案[EB/OL]. http://ipr.chinacourt.org/public/detail_sfws.php?id=4080,2010.04.25
[37]李鲁林.“DVD专利事件”及相关法律问题研究——兼及企业专利战略[D].中国政法大学2004年硕十论文
[1]United States v. Univis Lens Co.,316 U.S.241,62 S.Ct.1088 [EB/OL]. http://origin-www.lexisnexis.com/ap/auth/,2009.10.13
[2]Quanta Computer, Inc. v. LG Electronics, Inc.,128 S.Ct.2019,170 L. Ed.2d 996 [EB/OL]. http://origin-www.lexisnexis.com/ap/auth/,2010.10.13
[3]Simon Thorley, Richard Miller, Guy Burkill, etc. Terrell on the Law of Patent [M]. Sweet & Maxwell,2006,7-14
[4]尹新天.专利权的保护[M].北京：知识产权出版社,2005年,65-125
[5]费艳颖、杨超.论专利权之权利用尽原则——以2004年DVD专利费纠纷案为例[J].哈尔滨工业大学学报(社会科学版),2007年(3),73-76
[6]闫宏.专利默示许可规则探析[D].清华大学2007年硕士学位论文
[7]董美根.论专利产品销售所附条件的法律效力[J].华东政法大学学报,2009年(3),53-60
[8]万琦.欧美专利权用尽原则售后限制的比较研究[J].知识产权,2010年(4),91-96
[9]刘春田.知识产权法[M].北京：中国人民大学出版社,2007年,313
[10]严桂珍.我国专利平行进口制度之选择——默示许可[J].政治与法律,2009年(4),83-90
[11]林晓玉.专利商品平行进口的法律制度研究——以美国为中心[D].中央民族大学2006年硕士学位论文
[12]郑胜利、朱理、刘永沛、张名、曾丽、陈沼平、刘思杰.《专利权的限制和例外》国家知识产权局条法司编《<专利法>及<专利法实施细则>第三次修改专题研究报告》(下卷)[R].北京：知识产权山版社,2006,1500-1501
[13]Amiram Benyamini. Patent Infringement in the Euiopean Community [M]. IIC Studies, Vol.13,290
[14]和育东.美国专利权穷竭原则的演变——兼评美最高法院对Quanta v.LG Electronics案的判决[J].电子知识产权,2008年(9),48-51
[15]Bloomer, Inc. v. McQuewan, Inc.,55 U.S.539 (1852) [EB/OL]. http://origin-www.lexisnexis.com/ap/auth/,2009.10.13
[16]Adams v. Burke,84 U.S.453 (1873) [EB/OL]. http://origin-www.lexisnexis.com/ap/auth/,2009.10.13
[17]Keeler v. Standard Folding-Bed Co.,15 S.Ct.738 (1895) [EB/OL]. http://origin-www.lexisnexis.com/ap/auth/.2009.10.13
[18]李扬.知识产权与反垄断法关系的几个特殊问题(上)[J].学习论坛,2008年(1),74-77
[19]Cyrix Corp. v. Intel Corp.846 F. Supp.522.540 (E.D. Tex 1994) [EB/OL]. http.//origin-www.lexisnexis.com/ap/auth/,2010.04.25
[20]Bandag, Inc. v. Al Bolser's Tire Stores, Inc.,750 F.2d 903,924 (Fed. Cir.1984) [EB/OL]. http://origin-www.lexisnexis.com/ap/auth/.2011.03.26.
[21]John W. Osborne. A Coherent View of Patent Exhaustion [J]. Santa Clara Computer and High Technology Law Journal, March,2004 [EB/OL]. http://origin-www.lexisnexis.com/ap/auth/,2010.04.25 Glass Equipment Development. Inc. v. Besten. Inc.,174 F.3d 1337 (1999)
[22][EB/OL]. http://origin-www.lexisnexis.com/ap/auth/,2010.04.25
[23]De Forest Radio Telephone Co. v. United States,273 U.S.236 (1927) [EB/OL]. http://origin-www.lexisnexis.com/ap/auth/,2009.10.13
[24]Jay Dratler, Jr著,王春燕等译.知识产权许可(上)[M].北京：清华大学出版社,2003,184-185,203-225
[25]龙卫球.民法总论[M].北京：中国法制出版社,2002年12月,533
[26]Sidney Henry et al. v. A. B. Dick Company,224 U.S.1,32 S.Ct.364 [EB/OL]. http://origin-www.lexisnexis.com/ap/auth/,2010.04.25
[27]General Talking Pictures Corp. v. Western Elec. Co.,305 U.S.175,58 S.Ct.849,82 L.E.d 1273 (1938) [EB/OL]. http://origin-www.lexisnexis.com/ap/auth/,2010.04.25
[28]Mallinckrodt, Inc. v. Medipart, Inc., and Jerry A. Alexander,976 F.2d 700 (1992) [EB/OL]. http://origin-www.lexisnexis.com/ap/auth/,2010.04.25
[29]Motion Picture Co. v. Universal Film Co.,243 U.S.502 (1917) [EB/OL]. http://origin-www.lexisnexis.com/ap/auth/,2010.04.25
[30]Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Repeat-O-Type Stencil Mfg. Corp.,123 F.3d 1445,1453(Fed. Cir.1997), cert. denied,523 U.S.1022(1998) [EB/OL]. http://origin-www.lexisnexis.com/ap/auth/,2010.04.26
[31]魏振瀛.民法[M].北京：北京大学出版社,高等教育出版社,2007年,761
[32]张黎光诉江苏光芒热水器有限公司、常州苏宁电器有限公司侵犯实用新型专利权纠纷案[EB/OL]. http://ipr.chinacourt.org/public/detail_sfws.php?id=33618,2010.01.08
[33]Pharmon v. Hoechst. [1985] E.C.R..2281 [EB/OL]. http.//origin-www.lexisnexis.com/ap/auth/.2009.10.13
[34]龙年电子(深圳)有限公司广东科龙冰箱有限公司侵犯专利权纠纷一案[EB/OL]. http://ipr.chinacourt.org/public/detail_sfvvs.php?id=4080,2010.04.25
[35]程永顺.专利侵权判定实务[M].北京：法律出版社,2002年,36
[36]陈永江诉湖南金信化工有限公司、西安市兰空航空设备有限责任公司、四川简阳华西技工贸易发展公司专利侵权纠纷案[EB/OL]. http://ipr.chinacourt.org/public/detail_sfws.php?id=4080,2010.04.25
[37]李鲁林.“DVD专利事件”及相关法律问题研究——兼及企业专利战略[D].中国政法大学2004年硕十论文