TRIPS协定下专利申请的披露要求研究

【作者】 吕炳斌；

【导师】 张乃根；

【作者基本信息】 复旦大学 ， 国际法学， 2011， 博士

【摘要】 本文旨在研究《与贸易有关的知识产权协定》(TRIPS协定)下的专利申请的披露要求。在绪论部分简明扼要地提出本文研究的问题及其重要意义并对研究对象作界定之后,正文各章从四大方面展开论述。第一章探讨了专利申请的披露要求之一般理论,为整篇论文奠定基础。该章明确了专利申请的披露之涵义及其作用,考证了这一制度的起源和早期演进,论证了专利申请的披露要求对于专利制度的关键意义。专利具有固有的披露特性,专利申请的披露要求强调的是充分披露。专利申请的披露具有丰富的内涵和外延：它包括发明的充分披露和其他信息披露,以“使能够”充分披露为核心；它涉及申请披露、公开披露两个阶段；它寄身于专利申请和审查程序之中,但其外延又不限于此；它具有实质和形式两个侧面,并以实质意义为主。发明的充分披露是专利申请获得授权的实质条件,其地位不容轻视。披露是专利制度的本质所在,为专利制度的首要功能、最终目的以及关键问题之一。专利申请的披露要求对于权利人、审查机关、技术交易方、社会而言都具有一定的作用。披露自始就是专利制度的本质；现代专利申请的披露制度之形成有其特定的思想观念基础、特定的经济动力、特定的政治背景。专利申请的披露要求确保了专利申请中技术信息的公开,对于维系专利制度具有关键意义,具有丰富的法理内涵：专利申请的披露要求符合知识产权制度的目标,体现了专利制度的本质特点,折射了公权力和私权利之间的关系,反映了英美契约法的对价理论。披露要求在专利制度中具有深厚的历史底蕴和法理底蕴,其中心地位和关键意义根深蒂固,这是它在TRIPS协定专利条款中占据一席之地的深层原因。第二章探讨了专利申请的披露要求之条约义务。本章首先通过对专利申请的披露要求之条约体系的梳理和分析,明确了TRIPS协定相比以往国际条约而言在披露要求的协调方面所取得的进步和发展。就条约文本及条约义务上而言,与《专利合作条约》只从有限意义上对充分披露要求进行协调相比,TRIPS协定从全方位对之进行协调,通过条约义务的形式进一步巩固了这一具有深厚历史底蕴和法理底蕴的制度。TRIPS协定还首次在多边条约的正式文本中尝试对最佳方式披露要求、外国申请及授权情况披露要求进行协调。TRIPS协定是目前实体专利法国际协调的最高成就。接着,本章对TRIPS协定第二十九条协调的三种不同的披露要求的条约义务性质、成因、国际协调意义等详加分析。充分披露要求是TRIPS协定下的一项强制性的条约义务,是一种实质和形式兼具、又以实质为主的要求。TRIPS协定纳入充分披露要求在极大程度上是就实体法而言。最佳方式披露要求是一种可选择的条约义务。TRIPS协定对之进行规定是专利法国际协调在一定程度上的突破,也反映了美国在专利法国际协调中的作用。外国申请及授权情况披露要求也是一种可选择的条约义务,其重点在于外国专利“授权相关信息”的披露。它反映了在国际贸易及投资的推动下,世界贸易组织(WTO)成员们对专利审查、授权及其信息分享的国际合作的迫切需求。三种不同类型、不同性质的披露要求凸显了TRIPS协定利益协调的复杂和微妙。第三章通过对美国、德国、日本、中国这四个代表性成员的专利法及实践展开比较研究,考察TRIPS协定第二十九条规定的披露要求在WTO主要成员的实施和运行,并实证地探究第二十九条的协调成效与局限。TRIPS协定第二十九条的实质内涵通过国内法得以更好的解析。关于TRIPS协定第二十九条下的强制性义务即充分披露要求,各成员在实施中的相同之处主要有：都要求“使能够”充分披露、都以“本领域技术人员”为充分披露的判断主体、都以说明书和权利要求及附图为充分披露的判断依据、都将充分披露作为发明专利申请获得授权的实质条件、都采用书面披露原则并有相同的例外补充；各成员在实施中的不同之处主要有：“使能够”涵义表述上存有差异、“本领域技术人员”在实施中存有差异、“问题-解决方案-效果”的充分披露模式仅为部分成员采用、单独的“书面描述”要求仅为个别成员采用、各成员在披露要求的形式规范及详尽程度上也有所不同。关于TRIPS协定第二十九条下的选择性义务即外国申请及授权情况披露要求和最佳方式披露要求,有关成员在实施中也存有差异。各成员在实施中的相同之处在很大程度上体现了TRIPS协定第二十九条的协调成效和意义,而实施中的不同之处则显示出第二十九条协调的局限性。对各主要成员实施TRIPS协定的具体实践的比较研究使我们发现各成员专利法的各自优劣之处,继而探求其他成员的专利法实践对我国专利法实施和完善的启示。本章从多方面提出了关于我国专利申请的披露要求的实施和完善的建议。专利申请的披露要求的比较研究对我国企业实施国际化战略也具有实践意义上的重要启示。掌握其他主要成员专利法中的披露要求是我国企业海外申请专利、开展国际贸易及投资的重要前提。“披露要求”还是我国企业应对海外专利纠纷的“利器”。在前述各章研究一般原理、国际条约、国内法实施之后,第四章转向TRIPS协定下遗传资源披露这一前沿问题。本章首先明确了这一谈判的由来和动力,评介了TRIPS协定下有关遗传资源披露要求的现有提案,分析了遗传资源披露要求与已有披露要求的关系。接着,本章着力探讨TRIPS协定下遗传资源披露问题谈判的理论基础。遗传资源的国家主权原则是有关遗传资源的国际法律制度设计的理论起点。遗传资源的国家主权原则本质上确立的是国家对遗传资源的公权力。在遗传资源披露问题上,专利制度再一次面临公权力和私权利之间张力的考量,这也体现了专利申请的披露要求的共性和一脉相承之处。本章继而对将遗传资源披露要求纳入TRIPS协定的反对和赞成理由作了辨析,对遗传资源披露要求在TRIPS协定中的可纳入性进行论证,并对遗传资源披露要求的国际制度构建中的关键问题作了细致分析,从而提出通过修正TRIPS协定第二十九条增加第三款的具体建议。我国应当以比较强硬的态度参与这一谈判,尽可能多地争取符合我国利益的国际规则的实现。更多还原

【Abstract】 This dissertation aims to study on disclosure requirements for patent application under the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (the TRIPS Agreement). After briefly introducing the issues which will be explored on later, pointing out their significance, and defining the object of study, this dissertation will discuss them in the following chapters from four aspects.Chapter one studies on the general theory of disclosure requirements for patent application, establishing the foundation for the whole dissertation. This chapter clarifies the meanings and functions of the disclosure in patent application, investigates the origin and early evolution of this institution, and demonstrates the key significances of disclosure requirements for patent application to the patent system. Patent has its inherent disclosure characteristic; what disclosure requirements for patent application emphasize is the sufficiency of disclosure. The disclosure of patent application has abundant meanings and extensions:it includes the sufficient disclosure of invention and the disclosure of other information, with the enabling disclosure as its center; it relates to two phases, namely, "application disclosure" and "public disclosure"; it is based in the patent prosecution proceeding, but its extension is not limited within it; it has both substantive and formal sides, with the substantive side as the main side. Sufficient disclosure of the invention is a substantive condition for patent grant, which can not be neglected. Disclosure is not only the essence of the patent system, but also the first role, the ultimate goal, and one of the key issues of the patent system. Disclosure requirements for patent application have certain effects to the patent owner, the patent office, the technology transferring parties and the whole society. Disclosure is the essence of the patent system from the very beginning; the formation of the modern disclosure system of patent application has its specific theoretical and conceptual foundation, specific economic impetus and specific political background. Disclosure requirements ensure the disclosure of technical information in patent application, and have key significance to the maintenance of the patent system. Disclosure requirements have rich implications of jurisprudence. Disclosure requirements for patent application are in accordance with the objects of intellectual property system, and embody the essential character of the patent system; they have not only reflected the relation between public power and private right, but also demonstrated the theory of consideration in Anglo-American contract law. Disclosure requirements have profound historical and theoretical groundings in the patent system; with the central position and key significances deeply rooted; these explain the deep reason why it has one article in the patent clauses of the TRIPS Agreement.Chapter two discusses the treaty obligations of disclosure requirements for patent application. Firstly, this chapter summarizes and analyzes the framework of treaties on disclosure requirements for patent application, demonstrating the progress and development of the TRIPS Agreement compared to the former international treaties on the issue of disclosure requirements. From the perspective of treaty text and treaty obligations, compared to the Patent Cooperation Treaty, which has harmonized the sufficient disclosure requirement in a limited sense, the TRIPS Agreement harmonizes it all-round, and solidifies this system with profound historical and theoretical groundings through the form of treaty obligation. And, the TRIPS Agreement tries for the first time, in the official texts of multilateral treaties, to harmonize the best mode disclosure requirement and the information disclosure requirement concerning the corresponding foreign patent applications and grants. The TRIPS Agreement currently is the topmost achievement of international harmonization on substantive patent law. Then, this chapter analyzes in detail about, the nature of treaty obligations, the cause of formation, and the effect on international harmonization, of the three different disclosure requirements harmonized by article 29 of the TRIPS Agreement. The requirement of sufficient disclosure is a compulsory obligation under the TRIPS Agreement. It is a requirement with both substantive and formality aspects, and mostly a substantive one. The TRIPS Agreement incorporated the requirement of sufficient disclosure from the substantive law aspect to an utmost extent. Disclosure requirement of best mode is an optional international obligation. The regulation of best mode disclosure requirement in the TRIPS Agreement is a breakthrough of the international harmonization of patent law to a certain extent, which also reflects the effect of the U.S. in the international harmonization of patent law. The information disclosure requirement--concerning corresponding foreign patent applications and grants--is also an optional international obligation, and the key of it is the disclosure of "information concerning foreign patent grants". It reflects WTO members’ emergent needs for the international cooperation in the patent examinations, grants and information sharing, under the push from international trade and investment. Three disclosure requirements of different styles and natures prominently reflect the complexity and subtlety in regulation of different interests in the TRIPS Agreement.Chapter three proceeds to conduct comparative studies on the patent laws and practices of four representative members, the U.S., Germany, Japan and China, and review the implementation and practice of article 29 of the TRIPS Agreement in these main WTO members, and thus to investigate the effects and limitations of harmonization by article 29. The essential meanings of article 29 of the TRIPS Agreement find their better construction from studies on national laws. In regard to the compulsory obligation under article 29 of the TRIPS Agreement, namely, the sufficient disclosure requirement, all of these members require the sufficient disclosure of enabling; determine the sufficient disclosure from the perspective of "a person skilled in the art"; assess the sufficiency of disclosure on the basis of the description, claims and drawings as a whole; take the sufficient disclosure as a substantive condition of patentability as regard to patent application of invention; and adopt the written disclosure principle with one identical special exception for deposit of biological materials. The members’ implementations of sufficient disclosure requirements also have their differences, including:the discrepancy in the expression of "enabling"; the discrepancy in the practice of "a person skilled in the art"; only some members implement the "problem-solution-effect" mode of the sufficient disclosure; very few member adopt a separate written description requirement; the differences in the formality standards of disclosure requirements and their levels of detail. In regard to the optional obligation under article 29 of the TRIPS Agreement, namely, the disclosure requirement concerning foreign patent applications and grants, and the best mode disclosure requirement, there are also discrepancies in the implementation by concerned members. The sameness of members’ implementation of disclosure requirements reflects, to a large extent, the effects and significances of harmonization by article 29 of the TRIPS Agreement. The differences of members’ implementation of disclosure requirements show the limitations of harmonization by article 29. We can find the advantages and disadvantages of different patent laws through this comparative study of main members’ practice on implementation of the TRIPS Agreement, and thus to explore the enlightenment of other members’ patent law practices to China patent law’s enforcement and improvement. This chapter proposes many suggestions concerning the enforcement and improvement of disclosure requirements for patent application in China. The comparative study on disclosure requirements for patent application also has important practical enlightenment to Chinese enterprises which have carried out or will carry out the international strategies. Mastering the disclosure requirements in other chief members’patent laws is the vital precondition for the foreign patent application, international trade and investment by Chinese enterprises. The disclosure requirements are also useful weapons for Chinese enterprises to cope with overseas patent disputes.Following the general theory, international treaties, and the national law implementations in the supra chapters, the fourth chapter turns to the forefront issue of the genetic resources disclosure under the TRIPS Agreement. This chapter firstly illuminates the origin and impetuses of this negotiation, remarks on the current proposals concerning the genetic resources disclosure requirements under the TRIPS Agreement, and analyzes the relationship between the genetic resources disclosure requirements and the formerly existed disclosure requirements. Next, this chapter focuses on the analysis of theoretical foundations of the genetic resources disclosure issue under the TRIPS Agreement. The principle of national sovereignty of genetic resources is the theoretical starting point for the construction of international legal system concerning genetic resources. The principle of national sovereignty of genetic resources essentially establishes the public power of nations to genetic resources. On the issue of genetic resources disclosure, the patent system faces the tension between public power and private right once again. This also reflects the commonness and homology of disclosure requirements. Then, this chapter critically comments on the reasons both for and again the incorporation of genetic resources disclosure requirements into the TRIPS Agreement, demonstrating the rationality to incorporate it into the TRIPS Agreement, and then analyzes delicately the key issues in the international institution construction of genetic resources disclosure requirements, thus advances a detailed proposal to amend article 29 of the TRIPS Agreement by adding paragraph three. China shall participate in this negotiation with a comparatively tough attitude, and strives for the realization of international rules for the best interest of China as possible.更多还原