科技与法律
科技與法律
과기여법률
SCIENCE TECHNOLOGY AND LAW
2015年
3期
488-521
,共34页
网络交易平台提供商%专利侵权%“通知”规则%“知道”规则
網絡交易平檯提供商%專利侵權%“通知”規則%“知道”規則
망락교역평태제공상%전리침권%“통지”규칙%“지도”규칙
Internet Trading Platform Providers%Patent Infringement%“Notice” Rules%“Know” Rules
互联网技术的普及和迅速发展，促进了网络交易的迅猛增长，也带来了一系列知识产权保护方面的问题。以专利为例，由于现行法律法规关于网络交易中专利权保护的规定不够完善，网络交易专利纠纷不断增多。梳理和明确网络交易平台提供商专利侵权法律责任，提出相应的法律修改建议，对于网络交易市场持续健康发展意义重大。近年来，网络交易平台专利侵权纠纷呈现四方面特点：一是专利纠纷数量居高不下，网络交易平台提供商处理压力极大；二是网络交易平台专利侵权认定难，网络交易平台提供商不具有认定主体资格；三是针对外观设计和实用新型专利的恶意投诉问题突出；四是网络交易平台提供商的法律责任不明。针对这些问题，建议将“通知”规则作为判断网络交易平台提供商专利侵权责任的一般原则，将“知道”规则作为判断网络交易平台提供商专利侵权责任的特殊原则，并对二者的适用条件进行区分。
互聯網技術的普及和迅速髮展，促進瞭網絡交易的迅猛增長，也帶來瞭一繫列知識產權保護方麵的問題。以專利為例，由于現行法律法規關于網絡交易中專利權保護的規定不夠完善，網絡交易專利糾紛不斷增多。梳理和明確網絡交易平檯提供商專利侵權法律責任，提齣相應的法律脩改建議，對于網絡交易市場持續健康髮展意義重大。近年來，網絡交易平檯專利侵權糾紛呈現四方麵特點：一是專利糾紛數量居高不下，網絡交易平檯提供商處理壓力極大；二是網絡交易平檯專利侵權認定難，網絡交易平檯提供商不具有認定主體資格；三是針對外觀設計和實用新型專利的噁意投訴問題突齣；四是網絡交易平檯提供商的法律責任不明。針對這些問題，建議將“通知”規則作為判斷網絡交易平檯提供商專利侵權責任的一般原則，將“知道”規則作為判斷網絡交易平檯提供商專利侵權責任的特殊原則，併對二者的適用條件進行區分。
호련망기술적보급화신속발전，촉진료망락교역적신맹증장，야대래료일계렬지식산권보호방면적문제。이전리위례，유우현행법율법규관우망락교역중전리권보호적규정불구완선，망락교역전리규분불단증다。소리화명학망락교역평태제공상전리침권법률책임，제출상응적법률수개건의，대우망락교역시장지속건강발전의의중대。근년래，망락교역평태전리침권규분정현사방면특점：일시전리규분수량거고불하，망락교역평태제공상처리압력겁대；이시망락교역평태전리침권인정난，망락교역평태제공상불구유인정주체자격；삼시침대외관설계화실용신형전리적악의투소문제돌출；사시망락교역평태제공상적법률책임불명。침대저사문제，건의장“통지”규칙작위판단망락교역평태제공상전리침권책임적일반원칙，장“지도”규칙작위판단망락교역평태제공상전리침권책임적특수원칙，병대이자적괄용조건진행구분。
With the development of the internet technology, online transactions have been growing rapidly. However, new problems and new challenges are coming at the same time. Take the patent for example, due to the lack of relevant laws and regulations of intellectual property, the number of patent infringement is increasing continuously. Under this background, it is very important to comb and determine the patent infringement liability of Internet Trading Platform Providers (ITPP) ahead for promoting the sustained and healthy development of online transactions. In recent years, there are four main features in patent infringement of Internet Trading Platform. Firstly, ITPP are under pressure to handle a large number of patent disputes. Secondly, it is very difficult to determine patent infringement liability and ITPP don’t have a subject qualification to determine. Thirdly there are a lot of malicious complaints about design and utility model patents. Finally, patent infringement liability of ITPP is not clear. Aiming at above problems, this dissertation gives some suggestions to perfect the laws and regulations including using the “Notice” rules as the general liability principles and the “Know” rules as the special liability principles, and distinguishing the applicable conditions of them.
