生物技术发明专利制度研究

【作者】 付建勇；

【导师】 张玉敏；

【作者基本信息】 西南政法大学 ， 法律， 2003， 硕士

【摘要】 本文作者不企图从制度外对时下流行的关于专利制度及生物技术发明专利制度的合法性危机命题作出正面解答或辩护；而是试图从制度内一方面通过对专利法理论的逻辑梳理，另一方面通过对生物技术发明专利立法与实践文本的技术解读，来消解人们对生物技术发明专利制度的种种疑虑和误解，最终完成专利制度及生物技术发明专利制度是实践理性的产物的论证。专利制度有其逻辑自治性和相对的自立自足、独立自主的理性品格，专利制度不能也不会迷失在生物技术浪潮中。 全文分五个部分，第一部分生物技术的专利法表达。作者借用生物技术领域中“表达”这一常用语汇，意指生物技术的技术特性会以此种或彼种途径在专利法上得以显现，使得生物技术发明专利制度出现种种令人迷惑的“特殊性”。对生物技术发明专利制度进行技术解读是贯彻本文始终的方法论之一，笔者以为，技术解读是理解生物技术发明专利制度“特殊性”的关键和钥匙。 第二部分可专利性分析(一)，在本部分，作者试图对可专利性分析作一个理论梳理，通过对各可专利性要件进行功能定位，揭示各可专利性要件共同配合，各守其职，共同构成了一个相对密闭的逻辑环。新颖性和创造性要件攸关专利制度的分配正义，实用性要件旨在说明专利制度的出场时间。专利制度对发明与发现的差别待遇并非逻辑必然而是实践理性选择的结果。专利权的取得和行使受公序良俗原则规制的法理表明专利制度的自主性亦受外缘性影响。 第三部分可专利性分析(二)，本部分着重对生物技术发明的可专利性法律文本进行技术解读，分析表明，专利制度并未为生物技术发明的专利保护开辟新路，生物技术发明纳入专利保护是随着生物技术发展专利制度逻辑运行的结果。然而由于生物技术的特性使然，生物技术发明的可专利性审查还是使用了大量的阐释性法律推定规则，但是这丝毫不表明生物技术发明的可专利性分析是在传统专利制度外另立炉灶，恰好相反，这些法律推定规则正是传统专利制度可专利性审查普遍规则的阐释形式并受普遍规则的验证和补充。本部分还探讨了授予植物新品种育种者权的新颖性、特异性、一致性和稳定性这“四性”与固有专利制度授予专利权的新颖性、创造性和实用性这“三性”之间的关系，分析表明，植物新品种保护作为植物发明的专门保护形式虽并行于专利制度却实质上受制于专利制度，授称物新品种权的“四性”邵例以却不十怵确版映了取得热u权的“三性”科要求，结的关育种者权的保护范围的吸更能清楚地发现，植物新品种保护制度要合理运转，其在渐育种者权的领科协究逃脱不了专利制度授予销权的实质郎的框架。 第四部分，保护范围及侵权认定，作者从分析当下流行话语中用以质疑生物技术发明专利制度正当性的假想侵权入手，引出本部分的中心论题：生物猕发明专利保护什么和不保护什么（什么是发明人的材贡献）？通诚入剖析和技术鹏湘物新品种保护国际公约｝）、美国植物专牙法及美国植物品种保护法抓史姊，作旅现，植物法献护双轨制领史的、经验的产物，而不是湖的产物；植物部u保护与植物品种保护正走向统一并共同回归形统专利制度。作者还探讨了植物法潍护范围是单个植株还是一个品种，是植株整村d民日在珠部分等诸多困惑产生的缘由，提出了生物材发明创u保护范围的珊析法，指出动IJ她非物质性的发明成果（重组遗传信息）的保护是透过对物质性载体（静态面）并继而精关物质性载体的织行为（动态面）这二维的控制来实现的。生物猕发明专牙的保护范围因受生物跳发明专十‘产品”的可重复性或能脱性和生物技术发明专牙‘产品”的变动性这两个技术故的型塑而表现为对由从繁殖材料到收获材料再到特定产品形成的一个‘产品链”的控制观剧以强大的效力，但因材u穷竭的法理却实际并不L临统产品专利的独占权就口强大。 第五部分遗传资源保护（代结语），作者分析表明，贴资源流失与保护问题不应成为怀疑生物材发明专利制度合理性的依据。湖资源流失与保护问题，刘明协讲，是与生物技术产业相伴随并由生物技术产业特点所始的。生物材发明铡制度只是促进生物材进步，并不直接引发雕资源流失与保护问题。斩u制帆影响的只是生物材进步带来的利益分酉d各局斯U益分规制问题。作者承认，我国作为然资源大国，湖资源流失问题严峻，加强贴资源保护研究具有办重要性，但尽管遗传资源作为群体智慧的结晶与专利权所保护的个人发明智力成果辅似之处，却因其找、客体和时问等的不确定性亦4瞄纳入专利权这种私有产哪式的保护之中，最后作者提出了征收雕资源税的初步设想。更多还原

【Abstract】 It is not the mission of this thesis to solve or defend for the currently prevalent legitimacy crisis proposition of the patent system and the bio-tech inventions patent regime particularly from a stand outside the patent system; rather, the mission hereof is to from a stand inside the patent system , by means of a deep logical analysis of the patent system per. se one hand,and a technological interpretation of the statutes and regulations on bio-tech inventions patent on the other hand, to dissolve the various doubts and misconcepts about bio-tech inventions patent regime , and eventually accomplish the establishment that both the patent system and the the bio-tech inventions patent regime are inherently of practical rational nature . Patent system , relatively independent and self-sufficient,will never and shall not be disoriented in the tide of the bio-technology .This thesis consists of five parts . Part I introduces the major method of analysis hereof , i.e. technological interpretation . Expression, a frequently used term in the bio-tech field , is transferred to refer to the phenomenon that the bio-tech characteristics necessarily in one way or another express themselves on the bio-tech inventions patent regime ,thus cause various puzzling " peculiarities " of the bio-tech inventions patent regime . Consequently , the technological interpretation is the key to understand the " peculiarities" thereof .Part Ⅱ undertakes a probe into the patentability analysis theory , with a focus on the functions of the patentability requirements . All the patentability requirements function cooperatively for a common aim to reach and maintain distribution justice of the patent system. Novelty and creativeness requirements relate to distribution justice between or among the inventors and the public . Utility requirement aims to determine when the patent system shall come on stage . The discriminatory treatment between inventions and discoveries by patent system is a practical rational matter rather than a logical corollary . The fact that the public order principle governs the acquisition and exercise of patent rightshows that external factors exert influence on the patent system .Part Ⅲ interprets the legal texts of the patentabililty requirements for bio-tech inventions patent from a technological point of view . Expectingly , the patent system has not cut a new path for the protection of bio-tech inventions , on the contrary , it is merely a logical consequence of the operation of the patent system with the development of the bio-technology . Many interpretive legal presumptive rules , subject to the common rules , are used for the examination of the application for bio-tech inventions patents . Furthermore, the new or novelty .distinctness, uniformity and stability requirements for the grant of the breeder’s right in the UPOVC approximately but not exactly express the long-established requirements for the grant of patents . Clearly , the articles of the scope of the breeder’s right connote the inventive step requirement for the grant thereof .Part Ⅳ demonstrates the scope and infringement of the bio-tech inventions patent . The holder of the patent thereof enjoys an exclusive right on the inventions , i.e. the re-combinant genetic information through the control over the material carrier thereof and the related acts .Part Ⅴ sets forth the genetic resources piracy problem .This problem fails to justify the doubts about or objections to the bio-tech inventions patent regime , which prompts the bio-tech advance and influences the distributional structure and mechanism of the accompanied interests . Fundamentally , the genetic resources piracy problem is the result of the characteristics of the bio-tech industry . Similar to the statutory subject matter as collective creative product though , the genetic resources are not fit for patent system protection because of their ambiguity on subject , object and time . So the taxation on genetic resources protection method is tentatively suggested .更多还原