CAJ | 학술논문

《专利法》第四次修改草案突出强化专利行政保护力度，引发了学界对历来存在“去留之争”的知识产权行政保护制度的关注。反对者的一个重要理由就是《TRIPS协定》对知识产权行政保护的规定与态度不明确。经研究发现：《TRIPS协定》对该制度在整体上持积极肯定的“扬弃”态度；我国取消或者削弱知识产权行政保护制度应当受到《TRIPS协定》“不得减损已有知识产权保护水平”原则的制约；行政查处可成为目前我国知识产权行政保护制度的重心；《专利法》第四次修改草案增加行政裁决侵权赔偿纠纷的职能欠妥当。
《전리법》제사차수개초안돌출강화전리행정보호력도，인발료학계대력래존재“거류지쟁”적지식산권행정보호제도적관주。반대자적일개중요이유취시《TRIPS협정》대지식산권행정보호적규정여태도불명학。경연구발현：《TRIPS협정》대해제도재정체상지적겁긍정적“양기”태도；아국취소혹자삭약지식산권행정보호제도응당수도《TRIPS협정》“불득감손이유지식산권보호수평”원칙적제약；행정사처가성위목전아국지식산권행정보호제도적중심；《전리법》제사차수개초안증가행정재결침권배상규분적직능흠타당。
The fourth draft of Patent Law strengthened the administrative protection system for patent, which cause intellectual property circle pays close attention to the administration protection system for intellectual property which has been a controversial issue from its beginning to now. One of the important reasons against this system is that it can＇t be surely found in TRIPS agreement. Based on the study on TRIPS, some conclusions can be discovered. They are as follows： the basic attitude of TRIPS towards the administrative protection system for IP is sublation; the cancellation or weakness of the administrative protection system for IP in China should be restricted by TRIPS; the administrative sanction ought to be the focus of the administrative protection system for IP in China at present; it is unreasonable for the administrative adjudication in compensation dispute to be provided in the fourth draft of Patent Law.