【作者】 李丹；

【导师】 寿步；

【作者基本信息】 上海交通大学 ， 知识产权， 2007， 硕士

【摘要】 任何一部法律的出台,任何一个法律制度的设置都是该社会政治、经济、文化几大因素共同作用的结果。本文通过一系列具有代表性的权利主张人诉销售商专利侵权案例引入了实践中销售商专利侵权问题的讨论。通过分析实践中权利主张人选择诉销售商专利侵权而非侵权产品的生产商这一现象,对我国专利法六十三条第二款规定的销售商专利侵权问题分别从历史、经济、哲学以及法理基础等几个角度进行了较为系统的分析,意图分析总结我国现行销售商侵权制度的成因和利弊。本文认为关于销售商侵权这一问题,从我国专利法的制定和两次修改可以看出,专利权人利益和相对于专利权人的其他人利益就如同天平的两端,而专利法就如同中间的支点,该支点轻微的移动都会对天平的平衡产生影响,而专利法这个支点正是通过其小心的移动,力图使平板得到最大的平衡,专利法在销售侵权这一问题上的历史沿革,正是支点移动的过程。同时基于经济成本的考虑,专利法六十三条第二款在对停止侵权行为的责任承担上采用了无过错责任,而在赔偿责任的承担上采取了过错责任原则。该条法律条文的规定符合法理学权利义务统一以及法律公平正义观的要求,也符合马克思主意哲学观的基本原理。因此该法条的规定符合专利法的基本目的和原则,对于我国现实经济社会的发展是有益的。但是法律条文与理论的契合并不代表其在实践中就能正确的作用,也不代表其在实践中可以得到适当的适用。由于法律其固有的僵化性,本法关于销售商侵权的规定存在被滥用的趋势,故本文针对这一问题提出了若干对策,对专利法六十三条第二款作了个人单方面的解读,认为实践中对于销售商主观过错的认定应当权威化,而不是通过一纸“侵权警告函”就确定其主观过错,另外对于如何认定“产品合法来源”以及“制造并售出”都有所讨论。希望这些建议能帮助我国销售商专利侵权制度在司法实践当中得到更好的适用,使其严格遵循立法原意,免于被滥用,从而更好的为我国经济发展和社会进步服务。更多还原

【Abstract】 Almost all of the law are influenced by such factors as politics, ecomomics and cultures. This article has analyzed why that most of right holder always pursue seller’s duty of patent infringement, in order to discuss this question. How to define sellers’compensation duty of patent infringement is embodied in art 63(2) of The Patent Law, and this paper has analyzed art 63(2) of The Patent Law by historical, economic, philosophic and legal basis methods.Through twice modifications about The Patent Law, it can be seen that the benefits of right holders and others are both end of the balance, and The Patent Law is the fulcrum, any little fulcrum’s movement will break the former balance and establish the new balance. Besides, art 63(2) of The Patent Law has chose doctrine of on-fault liability on infringement, but doctrine of liability for wrong on compensation, is based on economy cost factor. Art 63(2) of The Patent Law is accord with jurisprudence principle that right and duty is unified, and it’s accord with principle of justice and equity. It conform to Maxism-philosophy theory. Art 63(2) of The Patent Law is conform The Patent Law’s fundamental purpose and principle. This paper believes that art 63(2) of The Patent Law, as a result of multi-stakeholder, match the basic purpose and principle of The Patent Law, and it is benefit to development of society. But because of the inherent defect—legal rigidities, the related provision is abused by right holders, so this paper makes several suggestions about art 63(2) of The Patent Law. The judge of seller’s subjective fault shouldn’t be only based on obigee’s warning notice, but should be based on authoritative government. I hope those proposals will help patent infringement to be used suitable, freedom from abuse, and be better for China’s economic development and social progress.更多还原