【作者】 夏璇；

【导师】 田平安；

【作者基本信息】 西南政法大学 ， 诉讼法学， 2012， 博士

【摘要】 知识产权确认不侵权之诉是知识产权权利相对人与知识产权权利人或利害关系人之间法律关系处于危险或不稳定状态时,权利相对人为消除此种危险或不稳定状态而请求法院对知识产权侵权法律关系是否成立或存在作出判决的一种诉讼类型。我国于2002年由最高人民法院在对具体案件的批复中对此种诉讼予以承认,虽然最高人民法院又在此后的几个案件批复中对该类诉讼的性质、管辖等问题予以了明确。但是,知识产权确认不侵权之诉与常见的知识产权诉讼、侵权诉讼等诉讼在性质、特征上存在明显区别,其诉讼程序具有其独特之处,不能完全以通常的审理程序套用,2008年最高人民法院在修订《民事案件案由》时,正式把知识产权确认不侵权之诉纳入其中,使之成为我国司法实践中一种独立的诉讼类型。知识产权确认不侵权之诉在我国建立的时间尚短,理论界对此类诉讼的研究并不深入,对该类诉讼的性质、起诉条件、审理程序等问题有诸多争议。从实务界来看,虽然知识产权确认不侵权之诉在我国已经建立,但是鉴于该类诉讼所独有的特征,在诉讼程序上具有特殊的审理规则,而我国现今法律法规以及司法解释涉及知识产权确认不侵权之诉的具体规定很少,且缺乏可操作性,在实务的审理中每个审判人员因其知识背景、审判经验的差异而对其理解不同,从而在具体的程序适用上也采取不同的作法。就全国范围来看,各地法院对知识产权确认不侵权案件的审理是矛盾与混乱的,这种不统一的局面也给诉讼当事人的诉讼行为带来了困惑。知识产权确认不侵权之诉既然在我国建立,并且经过近十年的实践证明该制度在我国是现实需要的,是完善我国知识产权纠纷解决机制的重要组成部分,也是解决知识产权纠纷的重要方式,故而我们不能因为该制度还存在一定的争议或缺陷就放弃它,这不是科学严谨的学术态度,我们必须对其加以细致的研究,使其逐渐完善,发挥其应有功用,这也是本文的落脚点所在。本文共分为四章,约十五万字,基本内容如下：第一章“知识产权确认不侵权之诉概论”。本章主要是对知识产权确认不侵权之诉的基本理论问题进行阐述与分析。在该章节中作者对知识产权确认不侵权之诉的含义以及特征予以了界定,将知识产权确认不侵权之诉定义为知识产权权利相对人因现在或将来之行为,受知识产权人或利害关系人权利之影响,造成其与知识产权人、权利利害关系人之间法律关系发生危险或不稳定状态,为消除这种危险或不稳定状态而请求法院确认知识产权侵权关系不成立或不存在的一种诉讼制度。文章同时从知识产权、知识经济以及诉之利益等角度对知识产权确认不侵权之诉产生的原因及法理基础予以了分析,指出知识产权确认不侵权之诉产生的必然性以及其制度价值。知识产权确认不侵权之诉的基础理论中,对该制度的性质理论界争议较大,若不首先对知识产权确认之诉的性质进行明确,将会影响到对其具体诉讼程序的科学的建构,文章通过对现有理论争议的分析,指出知识产权确认不侵权之诉的性质应当属于确认之诉中的消极确认之诉,并通过对知识产权确认不侵权之诉与消极确认之诉的要素进行分析,从而确认了该结论的科学性。本章最后对知识产权确认不侵权之诉在我国的产生及现状进行了分析,从立法层面以及司法实践层面探讨了该制度在我国的不足与困境,为下一步的分析深入分析奠定了基础。第二章“知识产权确认不侵权之诉比较研究”。本章主要是将我国的知识产权确认不侵权之诉与国外的类似诉讼制度进行比较,通过比较发现我国现有规定的不足,为日后的完善寻找到可用以借鉴的目标。本章首先对知识产权诉讼非常发达的美国的宣告判决制度进行了研究,对美国的司法案例对宣告判决制度的核心要件—“实质性争议”的发展变化进行了梳理,美国诉讼中的“实质性争议”类似于大陆法系对于案件起诉条件的“诉之利益”的判断,这正是研究我国知识产权确认不侵权之诉起诉条件所必需解决的问题,而美国宣告判决制度“实质性争议”标准的演变对我国知识产确认不侵权之诉起诉条件的研究能够带来积极的启示。除此之外,本章还对英国不侵权诉讼制度、我国香港地区无理威胁宣告与不侵犯专利宣布等制度的具体审理程序进行分析,并具体对这些制度起诉条件、举证责任、审理法院等程序性问题进行了研究,指出诸多可供我国知识产权确认不侵权之诉借鉴、参考之处。第三章“中国知识产权确认不侵权之诉之司法实践”。本章立足于我国司法实践,文章对知识产权确认不侵权之诉在我国的审理情况进行实证调查分析。鉴于本文具有较强的实务操作性,纯粹的理论研究需要得到审判实践的支持。为此,为避免文章的写作过于空洞,成为纯粹的理论探讨,作者在写作期间在全国多个法院进行了调研,采取座谈、调查问卷等方式与调研法院的知识产权庭审判庭法官就知识产权确认不侵权之诉案件的审理进行探讨,并发放问卷进行调查,最终将调查问卷汇总分析,试图找出该制度在我国实务审理过程中的疑难以及审判法官所关注的问题,从而使理论研究更具有目的性、针对性。通过调研作者发现,虽然我国知识产权确认不侵权之诉尚缺乏具体法律操作规范和实务资料,但我国各地法院近些年来通过对知识产权确认不侵权案件审理大胆探索与实践,积累了丰富的审判经验,这些审判经验为将来最高人民法院出台具体的审理规范提供了可靠的实务基础。同时,我国的知识产权确认不侵权之诉审理过程中还存在许多疑难之处,如我国知识产权确认不侵权之诉在司法实践中,缺乏具体的可供操作的法律规范,许多程序性问题至今立法与实务尚未确定与形成统一,不同地区,不同法院,不同审判人员因其知识背景、理论素养以及审判经验方面的差异带来在审理知识产权确认不侵权之诉时对相同问题可能采取不同态度,当事人面对此情况无所适从。再如,诉之利益理论是研究作为消极确认之诉的知识产权确认不侵权之诉不可避免的问题,也是平息对知识产权确认不侵权之诉起诉条件争论的关键。但是我国理论研究对“诉之利益”理论研究尚显不足,知识产权确认不侵权之诉中诉之利益的界限在何处,是个充满争议的话题,因而如何判断原告起诉时具有诉之利益,在实务中也是个难以把握的问题。在知识产权的保护上,我国知识产权的保护实行“双轨制”的保护模式,这种保护模式下,法律并未强制任何利害关系人只能选择行政救济或司法救济二者之一,这也就意味着当事人可以寻求知识产权行政保护的行政救济程序,或者寻求民事侵权的司法救济程序,或者二者同时进行。若行政程序和诉讼程序同时进行,二者虽然各自有不同的职责分工,但是在对是否侵权的认定上,行政和司法均有法定职权,这就带来了知识产权保护双轨制冲突存在的可能性。最后,由于知识产权的专业性与复杂性,以及知识产权法律本身既要保护知识产权人的权利,又要维护社会公共利益之特点,对知识产权的行使予以了一定的限制。导致了法院在审理知识产权确认不侵权案件时,作出侵权事实是否成立的认定并不那么容易。而这些,都是我们在知识产权确认不侵权之诉审理中的疑难。第四章“知识产权确认不侵权之诉之完善”。本章首先通过我国知识产权确认不侵权之诉的现状,指出了对知识产权确认不侵权之诉进行完善的必要性,知识产权确认不侵权之诉对树立国民正确知识产权观念,稳定知识产权法律关系、解决知识产权纠纷,权利人正当行使权利,遏制权利滥用都有重要意义,故而我们不能因知识产权确认不侵权之诉还存在缺陷就将其抛弃、废除。接着,文章针对知识产权确认不侵权之诉在我国实务中的几个争议较大以及审理中的核心问题,如起诉要件、当事人的确认、反诉程序、既判力等问题进行了分析研究,对我国知识产权确认不侵权之诉的完善提出了建议与对策。更多还原

【Abstract】 Non-infringement action of intellectual property, which judged by courts in order to give a verdict to the existence of legal relationship of intellectual property infringement, is a type of action taken by intellectual property related interest holders for eliminating the risk and instability, which emerged from the unstable relationship between intellectual property related interest holders and intellectual property rights owners or its interested parties. This type of action was admitted by Chinese Supreme People’s Court through judgment to specific cases in2002. Though the property and jurisdiction of this type of action was confirmed by Chinese Supreme People’s Court in the judgment to several cases afterwards, the obvious differences exist between non-infringement action of intellectual property and common actions such as intellectual property action, infringement action in their properties and features. The common procedure cannot fit the special process of this action, so non-infringement action of intellectual property, recorded in <Main Points of Civil Cases> revised by Chinese Supreme People’s Court in2008, became an independent type of action in Chinese judicial practice.Non-infringement action of intellectual property was admitted in China not long ago and its theory was not familiar to Chinese legal scholars. Many disputes to the property, prosecution and procedure of this type of action exist in Chinese legal fields. Moreover, non-infringement action of intellectual property was admitted, different judicial officers adopt different legal procedures according to their own understanding to the judicial rules of non-infringement and special features, which lacks of operability and rules that confirmed by Chinese current laws and judicial interpretation. In China, the judgment to cases of non-infringement action of intellectual property is inconsistent, which puzzle the parties in their actions.According to the confirmation of non-infringement action of intellectual property and need of this type of action in China after legal practice in recent ten years, non-infringement action of intellectual property is an important part of Chinese dispute resolution system of intellectual property and a valid method in solving issues of intellectual property cases. This type of action should be studied and consummated continuously in order to display its function instead of being ignored easily. This conclusion is the purpose in writing this thesis. This one hundred and fifty thousand-words thesis will be divided into four parts as follows: Part one is "summary of non-infringement action of intellectual property", which includes statements and analysis to basic issues of non-infringement action of intellectual property. In this part, the meaning and feature of non-infringement action of intellectual property are defined by the author. Non-infringement action of intellectual property, which judged by courts in order to give a verdict to the existence of legal relationship of intellectual property infringement, is a type of action taken by intellectual property related interest holders for eliminating the risk and instability, which emerged from the unstable relationship between intellectual property related interest holders and intellectual property rights owners or its interested parties. In the points of view of intellectual property, intellectual economy and litigation interest, the thesis analyzes the legal basis and value of non-infringement action of intellectual property and points out the reasons and necessity of its being confirmed. The main issue of basis theory of non-infringement action of intellectual property is its feature, so it is necessary to define the feature of this type of action in order to construct the reasonable judicial system. The thesis defines that non-infringement action of intellectual property is a type of negative confirming action, and makes a reasonable confirmation to this conclusion after comparing the essential factors between non-infringement action of intellectual property and negative confirming actions. In the end of this part, the thesis analyze the current condition of non-infringement action of intellectual property after its being confirmed, discuss the defect and difficult position of this type of action in Chinese legislation and judiciary in order to give more details in following parts.Part two is "comparison to non-infringement action of intellectual property", which compares the Chinese system of non-infringement action of intellectual property and that of other countries, in order to find the current defect and determine the destination of this system in future. First, this part studies the declaratory judgment system in United States, whose intellectual property system is advanced. After confirming that actual controversy, the core of declaratory judgment system, is similar to the verdict of litigation interest of cases in the continental law system, the thesis will find the positive inspiration in the developing process of actual controversy in declaratory judgment system in United States. Moreover, this part will introduce many references to Chinese system of non-infringement action of intellectual property after introducing non-infringement action system in England, unreasonable threaten declaratory system and non-infringement to patents declaratory system in Hong Kong and analyzing their factor of prosecution, burden of proof and jurisdiction system. Part three is "Chinese judicial practice of non-infringement action of intellectual property", which includes the investigation and analysis of the actual judicial conditions of Chinese non-infringement action of intellectual property for strong operability of this topic and indeterminate relevance between this theory and actual practice. To avoid the frothy discussion, the author made investigation and survey about the condition of actual judicial practice of non-infringement action of intellectual property in the group of judges of several courts by having an informal discussion and doing questionnaire survey. The author summarized questionnaire survey and tried to find out the difficulty during judicial practice and important issues concerned by judges, in order to make the theory of this thesis more accuracy and reasonable. According to the conclusion of survey, many Chinese local courts gained lots of experience, which are helpful to future rules of non-infringement action of intellectual property confirmed by Chinese Supreme People’s Court, after judicial practice to cases of this type of action. Meanwhile, many problems exist in judicial practice of non-infringement action of intellectual property. First, China lacks operable and uniform legal standard in judicial practice of non-infringement action of intellectual property. Different areas, different courts and different judicial officers may adopt different legal procedures according to their own understanding to the judicial rules of non-infringement and special features, which always puzzled legal parties. Second, the theory of litigation interest is the core of studying non-infringement action of intellectual property as a type of negative confirming action and the key of resolving the disputes of the factor of prosecution. But the theory of litigation interest also has disputes in the limits of litigation interest in prosecution of non-infringement action of intellectual property, it is hard to judge whether prosecutors have litigation interest. China uses the "Double track" system in protecting intellectual property. Under this system, interest parties can assert administration remedy under administration protection system of intellectual property and judicial remedy under civil infringement system simultaneously because there is no prohibition for doing so. Though different obligations exist during the process, there may have possibility to emerge disputes in whether the infringement exists. Third, the theory of intellectual property is complex and professional, and the intellectual property law needs to protect both of interests of intellectual property rights owners and social benefits, so that the exertion of intellectual property is limited. Thus, it is difficult for court to give a verdict to the existence of infringement. All of above are difficulties in resolving cases of non-infringement action of intellectual property. Part four is "consummation of non-infringement action of intellectual property", which points out the necessity of consummating the system of non-infringement action of intellectual property by analyzing the current condition of this type of action in China. Though defect still exist, non-infringement action of intellectual property should not be ignored easily for its serious meaning of establishing right sense of intellectual property, stabilizing relationship of intellectual property, resolving issues of intellectual property, asserting the proper rights of right owners and preventing the abuse of rights. In following statements, the thesis discuss several core issues of judicial practice of non-infringement action of intellectual property, such as factor of prosecution, confirmation to interest parties, counterclaim process and binding force, in order to introduce advice and methods for consummation of non-infringement action of intellectual property in China.更多还原