【作者】 易玲；

【导师】 廖永安；

【作者基本信息】 湘潭大学 ， 诉讼法学， 2012， 博士

【摘要】 知识经济时代，知识产权保护的重要性与日俱增，虽然我国的知识产权实体制度呈现出蓬勃发展之势，但知识产权程序救济机制却相对落后，与社会需求脱轨。我国专利确权机制采“单轨制”模式，使得侵权纠纷与权利有效性无法在同一诉讼程序中解决，然而，出于诉讼效率的考虑和司法最终裁判原则，大多数发达国家选择“双轨制”来平衡专利确权中行政与司法的关系。学术界对于这一现象缺乏全面系统的研究，鉴于此，本文从专利有效性问题之行政与司法的判断权这一角度出发，论证了现行专利确权机制的问题点所在，并参酌比对美国及日本的相关制度，且为改善我国现状建议一套合理的解决方案。首先，本文通过对知识产权中专利权性质的分析指出客体的“无形性”乃为专利权权利不确定的根源，无体知识产权的主要机能并非是保护物或债的安全，而是在确保所有人类的文明能持续进步，我们不应将知识产权简单理解为物权、债权或界于物权与债权中间的一种权利，而是应该承认其为独立于民法所规范之物权与债权之外的另一种特殊权利。在传统私权观念下认识专利权会产生实务上的混沌，专利权申请、维护与执行逐渐成为世界各国政府面对产业竞争时的重要工作，如果对专利权性质认识不充分，则会阻碍专利权的程序性保障。因此，厘清我国知识产权中专利权的地位及确定性问题，可以为理解专利确权机制的特殊性做铺垫。其次，我国专利确权机制采用行政确权“单轨制”模式，这是职权分离下的产物，“单轨制”模式所带来的弊端日渐凸显，学界所提出的“循环诉讼”、“诉累”并非“单轨制”中专利无效程序所带来的病症，实践中的困惑在于没有认清专利行政授权确权行为的性质，由此，本文批判了基于传统私权角度将其性质定位为“民事确权”行为的不合理之处，肯定了定位为“行政复审”之合理理由，并进行实证分析，发现所谓的“诉累”被放大化了，“循环诉讼”也并非“循环”，“单轨制”困惑的成因在于三大基本关系的平衡与协调。台湾地区为了解决公私二元体制下，行政与司法分轨并行所导致的司法救济实效拖延问题，于2008年成立的智慧财产法院，改采专利确权“双轨制”模式，其经验值得我们借鉴与参考。再次，就世界多数国家来看，专利确权机制的改革都走向了“双轨制”模式，而建立专门性的知识产权法院或者法庭集中管辖权则成为“双轨制”改革的外部条件。2008年《国家知识产权战略》为我国知识产权司法审判体制改革指明了方向。结合中国国情及境外其它国家或地区的做法，我国试行的“三审合一”模式存在问题，但建立专门的知识产权法院时机还未成熟，可行的方式是先设立知识产权上诉法院，再逐步过渡到专门的知识产权法院，当然也要考虑到配套措施的完善。“双轨制”问题追本溯源为行政权与司法权的分配与制衡，我们应该在中国语境下探讨此问题，发挥好行政的功能作用，对当前专利确权机制进行变革，落脚点在于赋予法院“二合一”方式判断专利有效性权力，并据此认为关键还是建立有限而有效的司法审查机制应对专利诉讼拖延问题。第四，虽说“双轨制”模式下能提高诉讼效率，解决程序冗长等问题，但“双轨制”模式所带来的挑战也不容忽视，如，行政与司法若是没有建立有效的信息联络机制，裁判不一的矛盾将随时有可能发生；又如，处理技术性问题的专业人员配置不好，诉讼地位没有明确，及有可能形同虚设，影响有效性问题的判断质量。比较法上看，美国与日本处理专利有效性问题值得探究。在司法一元化体制下，美国的专利确权一向由单一的司法主导，但基于无效诉讼成本高昂的问题，美国于1981年建立单方复审制度，让第三者可在USPTO主张专利无效，1999年又建立当事人复审制度，扩大第三者参与复审程序的权限，2011年《美国专利法》修正案强化了专利行政复审制度，专利确权模式逐渐转向司法与行政“双轨制”。而日本在职权主义模式下，专利确权程序奉行“单轨制”，2000年的“Kilby案”打破了侵权诉讼与无效宣告分离的局面，日本于2004年修改《专利法》增加104之3，以立法的方式赋予法官间接判断专利有效性问题的权力，以加快专利诉讼的审理速度，并建立有效的联络机制，形成了现在的“双轨制”模式。值得思考的是，美国和日本属于两种极端不同的制度，但最近两者逐渐向中间移动，都纷纷以不同的方式建立双轨模式处理专利有效性问题，这为我国专利确权“双轨制”的探索提供很好的借鉴。另外，值得一提的是，在法院判断专利有效性问题的效力上，美国经历了一场巨大的蜕变过程，Triplett v. Lowell案中确立了相对效力，而Blonder-Tongue一案则戏剧化地改变了这一原则，对于如何协调行政与司法两者的关系，美国联邦上诉法院的Ethicon案的判决意见至今仍然起着支配性的作用。这些都为我国未来专利确权机制的改革留下较大的思考空间。最后，本文对完善我国专利确权机制问题提出三条路径：一，从发达国家的运作情况看，除了采“双轨制”解决专利无效问题外，大都把焦点放在了提高专利审查质量上，我国也应该从源头探索可行方式，尽可能减少“问题专利”才是根本，美国的“公众专利评审”（peer-to-patent）制度在提高行政审查质量方面是一个很不错方式，值得我国借鉴；二，未来应该走“双轨制”道路，赋予法院在专利侵权案件中判断专利有效性的权力，并建立信息联络机制，尽可能避免行政确权与司法确权出现冲突；三，应当由全国人大常委会产生或者授权最高法院组织建立区域性知识产权上诉法院（六大区域），而北京设立知识产权上诉法院专门受理不服工业产权复审机构(专利复审委员会、商标评审委员会等)裁决的所有工业产权确权纠纷的上诉案件，以此统一管辖权与审判标准，强化法院专业审判能力，提高审判效率。更多还原

【Abstract】 In the era of knowledge-based economy, the importance of intellectual propertyprotection is increasing.China’s intellectual property entity system presents a boomingtrend, but the intellectual property program relief mechanism is relatively backwardand somewhat comes apart with the social demands.The confirmation of patent in ourcountry is "monorail system". Infringement disputes and validity of patent can not beresolved in one proceeding. At the same time, for the consideration of theeffectiveness of the proceedings and the judicial principle of the final judge, mostdeveloped countries select the "dual-track system" to balance the relationship betweenthe executive and judicial in the confirmation of patent system. Academia is lackingof comprehensive and systematic study about this phenomenon. Basing on that, thispaper demonstrated the existing problem of the current confirmation of patent fromthe administrative and judicial judgment of patent validity.And it proposed areasonable solution to improve the situation in our country, while comparing andreferring to the advanced experience of the system in the United States and Japan.First of all, this paper points out that the intangibility of object is just the root ofuncertainty of patent by analyzing the nature of patent. The main function ofIntangible intellectual property is not to secure the right, but to ensure the sustainableprogress of human civilization. We should not simply take intellectual property asproperty rights,the creditor’s right,or other right in between, but should accept it asanother special right which is independent from the property right and creditor’s rightin the regulations of the civil law.Under the concept of the traditional private rights,the understanding of the patent will have practical confusions.The applications,maintenance and implementation of patents are becoming the important work forgovernments around the world while facing industry competitions.And it will hinderthe procedural protection of patent rights if the nature of patent right cannot be fullyrealized.Therefore, to clarify the position and certainty of patents in intellectualproperty rights can pave the way for understanding the particularity of theconfirmation system of patent.Secondly,the confirmation system of patent in our country of adopting the modeof "monorail system", which is the product of the separation of powers,Increasingly,the disadvantage of "monorail system" is prominent.And the so called "circulationlitigation","vexatious suit" is not the product of the invalid procedure in"monorailsystem".The confusion in practice is the blurred understanding of the nature of act ofpatent licensing and confirmation.As a result, this paper has criticized the unreasonable places of traditional point which regards the confirmation of patent asprivate right, and affirmed reasonable ones of the point of administrative review. Afterthe analysis of demonstration, we hold that the so called "vexatious suit" is magnified,and "circulation litigation" is not circulation. The cause of confusing of the "monorailsystem" is a balance and coordination of the three basic relations. In order to solve theproblem of procrastination in judicial remedy under the public-private dual system,Taiwan established the Intellectual Property Court in2008, and shifted to apply"dual-track system" in the confirmation system of patent. Its experience is worthinglearning and referring.Thirdly, as in most countries in the world, the reform in the confirmation systempatent is moving toward the "dual-track system". And establishing a specializedintellectual property court or the court centralized jurisdicton is the externalconditions of innovation."National Intellectual Property Strategy" which enacted in2008pointed out the direction for IPR judicial trial system reformation. Combinedwith China’s national conditions and other countries’or areas’ experience in practice,we have some problems in the system of "Three Traditional Procedures haveconsolidated to One System". But it is premature to establish a specialized IP courts.So the feasible way is to set up the Intellectual Property Court of Appeals at first, andthen gradually transited it to a specialized intellectual property court., of course, weshould considerate the improvement of supporting facilities.To trace to its source, theproblem of "dual-track system" lies on the allocation and balances of executive powerand judicial power. We should explore this problem based on our national conditions,and give play to the role of administrative..For the current reform of "confirmationsystem of patent", the end result is to give the court the power of "tub combinations"to judge the validity of the patent. And the key is to establish a limited judicial reviewmechanism to deal with the problem of delays in the proceedings of patent litigation.Fourthly, although "dual-track system" can elevate the efficiency of theproceedings, and resolve the lengthy of the procedure and other issues, the challengesposed by the "dual-track system" can not be ignored.For example, if an effectiveinformation contact mechanism between administrative and judicial is not established,the inconsistent in the judgment will be emerged at any time. In another example,professionals dealing with technical issues configuration is not good, litigation statusare not clear, and there may exist in name only, they all may affect the judgmentquality of a patent validity.Judging from the comparative law, the practice of the United States and Japan indealing with patent validity worth researching.Under the judicial monism, theconfirmation of U.S. patent system has always been dominated by judicial authority.However, based on the high cost of annulment suit, the United States established the system of unilateral review in1981. A third party can pose to the USPTO to oppugn apatent’s effectiveness. Then established the two sides review system in1999toexpanse the third party’s participation in reexamination proceedings. In2011, theAmerica Invents Act strengthens the patent administrative review system, theconfirmation of U.S. patent system is gradually shifting to the "dual-track system".In the doctrine of function and power of Japan, the confirmation of patent was"monorail system". But it was broken by the case of "kilby"in2000. And then Japanadded the104(3) in the amendment of patent in2004. This article affirmed that judgeshave the power to judge the effectiveness of patent to accelerate the efficiency ofpatent litigation. Also Japan has established an effective communication mechanismin this system to form a "dual-track system". It is worth pondering that United Statesand Japan are the two extreme systems, but both gradually move to the middle toestablish the "dual-track system" to deal with the problem of effectiveness recently. Itshould draw our attention.In addition, it is worth mentioning that the United Stateshas experienced a great change on the effectiveness of the court judgment of patentvalidity.In the case of Triplett v. Lowell, the court established the relative efficiency,but it has been dramatically changed by the case of Blonder-Tongue. And on how tocoordinate relationship between the administrative and judicial, the Ethicon case ofthe U.S. Federal Court of Appeal judgment’s opinion still plays a dominant role. Allof this has considerable inspiration to build the system of the confirmation of patent inour country.In conclusion, this paper has given three paths to improve the confirmation ofChina’s patent system.The first is that we should explore an effective approach fromtheOrigin, to minimize the problem patent is fundamental.while in this point, mostdeveloped countries,focus on improving the quality of patent examination addition tothe adopted "dual-track system" to solve the problem of the patent is invalid.In thisfield, the peer-to-patent in the United States is a very good way to improve the qualityof administrative review.The second is that we should choose the "dual-track system"in the confirmation of patent system.This means that we should give the court thepower to determine the validity of the patent in a patent infringement case. And weshould establish an information liaison mechanism to ensure the coordination in thesystem. Finally, six regional intellectual property Courts of appeals should beorganized by the National People’s Congress or the Supreme Court. And we shouldestablish a specialized Intellectual Property Court of Appeals in Beijing to accept theappealed case which refuses to accept the decisions of industrial property rightsre-examination institutions,such as the patent re-examination board, the trademarkreview and adjudication board, etc.In this way can we unified jurisdiction and trial standards in the Intellectual property litigation, and can we strengthen the trialcapacity of the court, and then can we improve the trial efficiency.更多还原