【作者】 倪静；

【导师】 齐树洁；

【作者基本信息】 厦门大学 ， 民商法学， 2008， 博士

【摘要】 基于利益因素、制度因素和环境因素的影响,知识产权纠纷必然产生。随着知识产权重要性日益突出,与知识产权有关的纠纷数量急剧增加。知识产权纠纷解决存在多种途径和方式,可以划分为公力解决模式、社会型解决模式和自力型解决模式三大类。长期以来,由于对知识产权本质认识不清,诉讼外纠纷解决机制本身制度建设的薄弱以及司法万能主义等思潮的影响,我国诉讼外解决知识产权纠纷机制没有得到应有的重视,因此导致大量知识产权纠纷涌向法院,法院不堪重负并由此造成一系列的不良后果。同时,由于知识产权纠纷解决存在专业性、时效性、保密性、国际性和多元化等要求,而传统诉讼方式解决知识产权纠纷,无论从满足知识产权纠纷解决特殊性要求的角度还是从评价一项纠纷解决机制效果的角度来看都存在很大不足,因而需要发展诉讼外解决知识产权纠纷机制。诉讼外解决知识产权纠纷具有合理性和优越性,知识产权法律制度与诉讼外纠纷解决机制之间还存在机理关联,同时世界上主要国家和地区都倡导诉讼外解决知识产权纠纷。当然,由于诉讼外纠纷解决机制的内在不足,其解决知识产权纠纷也具有一定的限度,因而在实践中并非适合解决所有类型的知识产权纠纷。社会型纠纷解决机制解决知识产权纠纷具有正当性,根本原因在于知识产权的本质是私权。由于知识产权还具有公共性和社会性的特征,因而这类纠纷解决机制的适用受到公共利益的合理限制。社会型纠纷解决机制解决知识产权纠纷的基本模式是仲裁和民间调解。知识产权纠纷仲裁机制中存在三个关键性的制度,即可仲裁性、临时命令和保密性,考察世界主要国家和国际仲裁组织的相关规范和实践,对我国相关的仲裁机制进行检讨并提出完善建议。知识产权纠纷民间调解机制在理论上和现实中遭遇了双重困境,通过对知识产权侵权纠纷中利益模型的分析可以得出调解解决知识产权纠纷具有可行性的结论。当然,这类纠纷解决机制在解决部分知识产权纠纷中具有相当的优越性。知识产权纠纷社会型解决模式还包括指导性评估、小型裁判、调解——仲裁/仲裁——调解以及复合程序等。我国知识产权行政机关解决民事纠纷是历史的产物,但是在当前发挥行政机关的解纷作用仍然具有相对合理性和优越性。同时,行政机关不应当过分介入平等主体的私权争议,仅限于维护公共利益的需要。知识产权纠纷行政型解决模式主要包括行政调解和行政裁决两大类,我国现行相关制度都存在不同程度的缺陷,应予以纠正和完善,同时鼓励行政机关采用合意型行政决定方式来解决知识产权纠纷。我国知识产权纠纷解决机制应以多元化为理想目标模式,诉讼与诉讼外纠纷解决机制以及各类诉讼外纠纷解决机制之间都应当相互协调、互为促进。国家应当从立法层面、政策层面和执法层面为构建我国知识产权纠纷多元化解决机制做出努力。更多还原

【Abstract】 Because of the interest factor, system factor and environment factor, the intellectual property rights dispute is inevitable. With the increasing importance of intellectual property rights, the disputes relating to intellectual property rights have been increased sharply. There are various resolution ways and methods of intellectual property rights dispute, and they can be divided into three types: the public resolution model, the social resolution model and the private resolution model. For a long time, because of the confused understanding of the nature of intellectual property rights, the weakness of Alternative Dispute Resolution system and the view that the justice is omnipotent, the Alternative Dispute Resolution of intellectual property rights dispute has not been valued which it should be and a number of intellectual property right dispute swarm to the court. The court can hardly burden and causes the other adverse consequences. At the same time, because the intellectual property rights dispute resolution needs professionalism, effectiveness, confidentiality, internationality and diversity, and the tradition lawsuit resolving these disputes has a great deal of inadequacy, both from the perspective of satisfying the special needs of the intellectual property rights dispute resolution and the view of the evaluation of the effect of a dispute resolution mechanism. Therefore, we need develop the Alternative Dispute Resolution of intellectual property rights dispute.The Alternative Dispute Resolution of intellectual property rights dispute has rationalities and advantages. The legal system of intellectual property rights has closed relations with the Alternative Dispute Resolution mechanism. The main countries and districts in the world have been advocating that resolving intellectual property rights dispute outside the court. Of course, because the Alternative Dispute Resolution has its inherent shortcomings, so there are limitations when it is used to resolve intellectual property rights dispute and it is not appropriate to resolve all types of intellectual property rights dispute in practice.The social dispute resolution dealing with intellectual property rights dispute has legitimacy, and the real reason is that the private right nature of intellectual property rights. However, the intellectual property rights has public and social features, the use of social dispute resolution to this kind of disputes is properly limited by the public interests. The main types of social dispute resolution of intellectual property rights dispute is arbitration and civil mediation. In the intellectual property right dispute arbitration, there are three key systems, which are arbitrability, provisional order and confidentiality. The author makes a research on the three systems of main countries and international arbitration organizations’ legislation and practices, then review these systems of our country and point out the suggestions on how to perfect them. The civil mediation of intellectual property rights dispute has countered the double difficulties in theory and practice, but we can conclude that the civil mediation of intellectual property rights dispute has feasibility through analyzing the interest models in the intellectual property right infringement dispute. At the same time, the civil mediation of intellectual property rights dispute has great advantages. The other social dispute resolution of intellectual property rights dispute includes Evaluation of guidance, Mini-trial, Meb-Arb/Arb-Med, hybrid processes.The intellectual property administrative agencies having power of resolving civil disputes is the product of history, however, recently encouraging the administrative agencies to resolve dispute has comparative legitimacy and superiority. Of course, administrative agencies cannot interfere too much on the civil dispute among the equal social bodies, and only limited for maintaining the public interest. The administrative resolution of intellectual property rights dispute can be divided into two types, which are administrative reconciliation and administrative adjudication. The current relating systems in our country have shortcomings with different degrees, so we should correct and perfect them. At last, we should encourage the administrative agencies taking use of consensual administrative decision method to resolve intellectual property rights dispute.The goal model of intellectual property rights dispute resolution mechanism in our country is diversification. The lawsuit model and the Alternative Dispute Resolution model, and all types of Alternative Dispute Resolution models should be interactive and coordinate. The country should construct the diversified models of intellectual property rights dispute resolution from the lawmaking level, policy level and law execution level.更多还原