【作者】 张伟君；

【导师】 单晓光；

【作者基本信息】 同济大学 ， 管理科学与工程， 2007， 博士

【摘要】 本文通过对一些国家规制知识产权滥用制度的比较发现,对知识产权滥用有四方面不同的界定和规制制度。英国专利法从授予专利的目的在于提升本国产业出发,将专利权人没有理由却不在本国实施专利,或公众对专利产品的需要没有得到充分满足等视为滥用专利权,并以颁发强制许可的措施予以制约。美国在专利审判实践中,将专利权人超越专利权的范围、对他人使用其专利技术设置各种不合理限制的行为视为滥用专利,如果法官认定滥用行为存在,将不对专利权人进行保护,直到专利滥用的行为得到纠正。各国的反垄断法都对知识产权权利人因行使知识产权而排除、限制竞争的行为进行规制,这些排除、限制竞争的行为也可以视为知识产权滥用。还有,知识产权人不诚实地以侵权诉讼相威胁或者恶意提起侵权诉讼,以限制他人对技术或信息的使用,在英国、美国、日本、欧共体的法律或司法实践中也被视为是对知识产权的滥用,并用不同的措施加以规制。总之,知识产权滥用是权利人行使知识产权时违反法律规定或公共政策的行为,主要表现为各种不合理地拒绝或者限制他人使用其知识产权的行为。知识产权滥用造成的直接后果就是限制和阻碍知识创新成果的转移和扩散。规制知识产权滥用是促进技术转让、实现技术进步的必要制度保障。经济学的研究表明,技术进步依赖于人力资本投资(技术创新)和知识溢出(技术扩散)的共同作用。虽然技术扩散存在诸多的困难,但技术转让是获取技术秘密或隐性知识的一个重要途径,国际间的技术转让更有助于发展中国家实现技术进步。然而,从利益最大化的原则出发,权利人只有在对自己是有利的情况下才会转让自己的技术。为了维持自己的垄断优势,权利人经常会滥用自己在技术、信息、品牌等方面的独占权利,拒绝转让自己的技术,或者在技术转让协议中对受让方设置种种限制,以排除他人的竞争、限制技术的转移。因此,任凭知识产权滥用而不加以规制,以知识产权制度促进技术创新、技术转移和信息扩散的目标就难以实现,最终有害于一国的技术进步和经济增长。各国规制知识产权滥用的措施和制度纷繁复杂,但强制许可措施在其中扮演着核心的角色。强制许可意味着不经权利人许可就可以使用某个知识产权,这将直接消除权利人限制技术转移和排除他人竞争的企图,但也同时给权利人足够的利益补偿,保持知识产权激励创新的功能。英国、美国、加拿大、欧共体以及巴西等国家和地区的强制许可实践充分说明了强制许可在规制知识产权滥用中的有效性与可操作性。同时,一些实证研究表明,强制许可会损害技术创新的假设是不成立的。相反,强制许可发生后,绝大多数的公司都继续保持一样的创新活动甚至加大了创新的步伐。另外,学者通过对专利强制许可和专利垄断效益的经济分析也表明,强制许可与专利垄断一样可以实现对技术创新的激励,但强制许可显然可以减少专利垄断带来的公众在获取专利产品上的障碍。因此,强制许可措施作为规制知识产权滥用的一个核心措施,具有经济上的合理性。从《巴黎公约》到TRIPs协议,强制许可作为规制知识产权滥用的措施也一直是各国关注、争议的焦点问题。强制许可制度的发展呈现出两条近乎矛盾的轨迹:一方面,强制许可超越了专利法的范围,不断地被用来作为防止其他知识产权滥用的利器,还被反垄断法用来规制知识产权滥用行为;另一方面,一些国家,特别是发达国家对于强制许可的采用规定了越来越多的限制条件,这些条件已经通过TRIPs协议普遍适用于WTO成员,使得发展中国家利用强制许可来规制知识产权滥用、促进技术转让的可能性越来越受限制。为了有效利用强制许可措施,发展中国家既要尽可能地跟踪专利技术信息,提高对专利产品的仿制能力,为实施强制许可提供技术上的支撑;又要利用TRIPs协议提供的法律空间,根据本国的需要充分地规定颁发强制许可的理由,并在TRIPs协议框架内争取取消对强制许可的一些不合理的限制条件。TRIPs协议中关于限制竞争行为、强制许可和滥用知识产权执法程序的规定已经为成员规制知识产权滥用设定了全面的制度框架。我国应该在TRIPs协议的框架下完善规制知识产权滥用的制度,以优化我国知识产权制度。在专利强制许可方面,可以将不实施专利或者不充分实施专利、限制竞争的行为作为颁发强制许可的理由;对于滥用明显无效的专利主张权利的行为,除了规定惩戒措施外,还应该严格专利审查标准、提高专利授权质量来减少问题专利;在反垄断法对知识产权滥用的规制上,应该借鉴发达国家的立法,明确知识产权滥用是权利人违反反垄断法的结果,并不是适用反垄断法的前提,避免以反垄断法规制知识产权滥用走入误区。更多还原

【Abstract】 By comparing the system of preventing the IP abuse in some countries, it is found that there are four different systems to define and prevent the IP abuse. In UK Patent Law, where the patented invention is not being commercially worked in the UK, or where a demand for the patented product in the UK is not being met on reasonable terms, it is an abuse of the monopoly and it will lead to a compulsory license or an endorsement of license of right. In American patent litigation, it is a patent misuse if the patentee improperly attempts to extend the scope of the patent. Patent misuse refers to an affirmative defense to an action for patent infringement. If misuse is found, the patent is rendered unenforceable until the misuse is purged. An IP holder will violate the Anti-monopoly law (or Anti-trust law or Anti-restriction of competition law) in different countries if the exercise of the IP rights excludes or retrains the competition. The conducts to exclude or restraint the competition can also be seemed as IP abuse. In addition to above mentioned, if the IP holder makes groundless threats of proceedings for infringement of IP rights or enforces the IP rights in bad faith, it is also an abuse of the IP in UK, USA, Japan, EU and so on. Above all, the IP abuse is the conduct that the IP holder violates laws or public policies when he exercises his IP rights, includes but not limits to following practices: failure to work and refusal to license, working insufficiently and refusal to license, unilateral refusal to license and abuse the market power, conditional refusal to license (vertical restriction), concerted refusal to license (horizontal restriction), unfaithful enforcement of the IP or abuse of the enforcement procedure. In summary, the result of IP abuse is restraining the transfer and diffusion of the technology and information protected by IP rights.The system to prevent the IP abuse is very important to promote the technology transfer and realize the technology progress in a country. From the classic economic growth theory to the new economic growth theory it is shown that the technology progress is important in economic growth. The economy research also shows that the technology progress depends on the mutual functions of resource investment (technology innovation) and knowledge overflow (technology diffusion). Although it is difficult to diffuse the technology, technology transfer will help to acquire the know-how and tacit knowledge and the international technology transfer will help the developing countries realizing the technology progress. But the IP holder will not transfer his technology besides he can benefit much more from it. Usually he will refuse to transfer his technology or set some restrictions in the licensing agreement to maintain his exclusive position and exclude competitions from others. If such IP abusing practices can not be regulated, it will harm to the technology progress and economic growth in a country.The measures to prevent IP abuse are in many ways in different countries and the compulsory licensing is in the core of them. The compulsory licensing can not only prevent the IP holder from impeding the technology transfer but also encourage the innovation for reasonable remuneration to the IP holder. The practices in UK, USA, Canada, EU and Brazil and so on are powerful evidences to show the compulsory licensing is an effective measure to prevent the IP abuse. At the same time, some empirical researches show the hypothesis that compulsory licensing will harms innovation is not true. In fact, the activities of innovation continued at the same or even higher pace than before the advent of a compulsory license. The economic analysis to the effect of a compulsory patent licensing and a legal patent monopoly also shows that a legal monopoly and an automatic compulsory license are equivalent in order to fulfill the goal of promoting or rewarding innovation, but an automatic compulsory license fixing a compensatory royalty rate can improve the accessibility to the patent product. From above, we conclude that compulsory licensing as a key measure to prevent the IP abuse is reasonable in economy.There were many debates in the course of development of compulsory licensing system from Paris Convention to TRIPs. On one hand, compulsory licensing was not only used to prevent the abuse of patent monopoly and other IP rights but also used as a measure in anti-monopoly law to regulate the abuse of IP. On the other hand, some nations especially developed countries limited the issue of compulsory licensing through TRIPs. There are much more difficulties to use the compulsory licensing as a measure to regulate the IP abuse in developing countries. But the developing countries still have much legal space under TRIPs to enact the ground of compulsory licensing in the domestic law. It is still possible to abolish some unreasonable condition of compulsory licensing in the TRIPs.TRIPs provided a comprehensive legal system to prevent the IP abuse, which is including the general principle of preventing the abuse of IP rights, use of the subject matter of a patent without the authorization of the right holder, control of anti-competitive practices in contractual licenses and safeguards against the abuse of IP enforcement procedures. We can set up a legal system including anti-monopoly, compulsory licensing, IP misuse as infringement defense and prevention of the abuse of enforcement procedures. Failure to work the patent and anti-competitive practices can be the ground of compulsory licensing in the Patent Law. In the drafting Anti-monopoly Law, it is important to regulate that IP abuse is not the precondition of anti-monopoly law violation but the result of the violation of the law. To prevent against the abuse of patent litigation, it is necessary to promote the quality of the patent and to reduce the questionable patent.更多还原