专利权利要求的解释规则:行政与司法

传播影响力
本库下载频次:
本库浏览频次:
CNKI下载频次:0

作者:

张沛铭

导师:

康添雄

导师单位:

民商法学院(知识产权学院)

学位:

硕士

语种:

中文

关键词:

专利授权;专利侵权;字面解释原则;等同解释原则;语境论

摘要:

鉴于语言文字本身的局限性和当前我国专利申请文件质量的有限性,专利权利要求 的解释成为专利授权、确权、侵权诉讼等过程中的必经程序。基于我国专利审查行政环 节(专利授权、确权程序)与专利侵权司法环节长期以来实行二元分立体制,专利权利 要求的解释也呈现出不同的特征差异,而如何看待和理解这些差异,以及采取何种对策 完善现行制度,已成为知识产权学界的重要议题。本文以专利授权、确权、侵权中专利 权利要求解释规则的一致性与差异性为切入点,提出自己的观点和相应的对策建议,希 望能为统一行政环节与司法环节的专利权利要求解释规则贡献绵薄之力,以能更好地保 护专利所有人并更好地满足公众对专利权的法律期望。 第一部分提出问题,分析问题研讨的必要性,指出专利权利要求作为对于专利保护 范围的厘定,必须准确、合理,而与专利权利要求紧密结合的技术却是一直处于动态更 新的状态,技术词汇的更新也是飞速迭代,如果不通过解释确定其含义,权利要求书所 记载的权利保护范围就不具有稳定性,无法满足请求原则和公示原则的双重属性。 第二部分对专利权利要求解释进行溯源与梳理,全面整理了专利权利要求解释的方 法、权利要求解释的原则、权利要求解释的困难以及权利要求解释的历史,指出现阶段 主流的解释方法包括字面解释、等同解释和合目的性解释三种,对应的,权利要求的解 释原则包括周边限定原则、中心限定原则及折中原则。 第三部分对行政环节中权利要求的解释规则进行了描述,具体先列举了专利授权确 权中对于权利要求解释的法律规定,再对专利授权确权中权利要求解释的法律适用进行 了分析,并总结了专利授权确权中权利要求解释的逻辑思路,最后简单分析了授权及确 权中解释规则的差异。 第四部分对司法环节中权利要求的解释规则进行了描述,如同第三部分,具体先指 出了专利侵权诉讼中权利要求解释的立法现状,接下来通过案例分析了专利侵权诉讼中 权利要求解释的司法实践,最后依据自身的理解预估了专利侵权诉讼中权利要求解释的 发展态势。 第五部分对行政环节与司法环节中权利要求的解释规则进行比较,重点描述了两个 万方数据 2 不同的环节中权利要求解释规则的冲突,首先是行政环节和司法环节中权利要求的解释 规则冲突的表现,既描述了两者的一致性,也描述了两者的差异性,其次分析了两者冲 突的原因以及差异已引发及可能引发的问题。 第六部分提出了作者自己对于两者冲突的解决,作者认为应在授权程序中尽量明确 权利要求的保护范围,确权及侵权环节则应适当限制对专利权人的宽容态度。 第七部分为结论部分。

学科:

知识产权法学

提交日期

2025-12-31

引用参考

张沛铭. 专利权利要求的解释规则:行政与司法[D]. 西南政法大学,2020.

全文附件授权许可

知识共享许可协议-署名

  • dc.title
  • 专利权利要求的解释规则:行政与司法
  • dc.contributor.schoolno
  • 20200728144857
  • dc.contributor.author
  • 张沛铭
  • dc.contributor.affiliation
  • 民商法学院(知识产权学院)
  • dc.contributor.degree
  • 硕士
  • dc.contributor.childdegree
  • 法学硕士
  • dc.contributor.degreeConferringInstitution
  • 西南政法大学
  • dc.identifier.year
  • 2020
  • dc.contributor.advisor
  • 康添雄
  • dc.contributor.advisorAffiliation
  • 民商法学院(知识产权学院)
  • dc.language.iso
  • 中文
  • dc.subject
  • 专利授权;专利侵权;字面解释原则;等同解释原则;语境论
  • dc.subject
  • Patent Authorization;Patent Infringement;Literal Interpretation Principle;Equivalent Interpretation Principle;Context Theory
  • dc.description.abstract
  • 鉴于语言文字本身的局限性和当前我国专利申请文件质量的有限性,专利权利要求 的解释成为专利授权、确权、侵权诉讼等过程中的必经程序。基于我国专利审查行政环 节(专利授权、确权程序)与专利侵权司法环节长期以来实行二元分立体制,专利权利 要求的解释也呈现出不同的特征差异,而如何看待和理解这些差异,以及采取何种对策 完善现行制度,已成为知识产权学界的重要议题。本文以专利授权、确权、侵权中专利 权利要求解释规则的一致性与差异性为切入点,提出自己的观点和相应的对策建议,希 望能为统一行政环节与司法环节的专利权利要求解释规则贡献绵薄之力,以能更好地保 护专利所有人并更好地满足公众对专利权的法律期望。 第一部分提出问题,分析问题研讨的必要性,指出专利权利要求作为对于专利保护 范围的厘定,必须准确、合理,而与专利权利要求紧密结合的技术却是一直处于动态更 新的状态,技术词汇的更新也是飞速迭代,如果不通过解释确定其含义,权利要求书所 记载的权利保护范围就不具有稳定性,无法满足请求原则和公示原则的双重属性。 第二部分对专利权利要求解释进行溯源与梳理,全面整理了专利权利要求解释的方 法、权利要求解释的原则、权利要求解释的困难以及权利要求解释的历史,指出现阶段 主流的解释方法包括字面解释、等同解释和合目的性解释三种,对应的,权利要求的解 释原则包括周边限定原则、中心限定原则及折中原则。 第三部分对行政环节中权利要求的解释规则进行了描述,具体先列举了专利授权确 权中对于权利要求解释的法律规定,再对专利授权确权中权利要求解释的法律适用进行 了分析,并总结了专利授权确权中权利要求解释的逻辑思路,最后简单分析了授权及确 权中解释规则的差异。 第四部分对司法环节中权利要求的解释规则进行了描述,如同第三部分,具体先指 出了专利侵权诉讼中权利要求解释的立法现状,接下来通过案例分析了专利侵权诉讼中 权利要求解释的司法实践,最后依据自身的理解预估了专利侵权诉讼中权利要求解释的 发展态势。 第五部分对行政环节与司法环节中权利要求的解释规则进行比较,重点描述了两个 万方数据 2 不同的环节中权利要求解释规则的冲突,首先是行政环节和司法环节中权利要求的解释 规则冲突的表现,既描述了两者的一致性,也描述了两者的差异性,其次分析了两者冲 突的原因以及差异已引发及可能引发的问题。 第六部分提出了作者自己对于两者冲突的解决,作者认为应在授权程序中尽量明确 权利要求的保护范围,确权及侵权环节则应适当限制对专利权人的宽容态度。 第七部分为结论部分。
  • dc.description.abstract
  • Nowadays, the importance of intellectual property is constantly increasing, patent application and right maintenance has become a hot spot in the market economy. Due to the inherent defects of language and characters and the limited quality of patent application documents in China, the interpretation of patent claims has become a necessary procedure in the process of patent authorization, confirmation and infringement litigation. Due to the binary and three-dimensional system of the administrative link of patent examination (patent authorization and confirmation link) and the judicial link of patent infringement for a long time, the interpretation of patent claims has presented different characteristics. How to treat and comprehend these discrepancy and what measures to take to improve the current system have become an important issue in the intellectual property field. This paper takes the consistency and difference of the interpretation rules of patent claims in patent authorization, confirmation and infringement litigation as the starting point, puts forward its own views and corresponding countermeasures and suggestions, hoping to contribute a little to the unification of administrative and judicial aspects of the interpretation rules of patent claims, better protect the patentee and stabilize the legal expectation of the public for patent rights. The first part of this article is to raise questions, analyze the necessity of discussion, and point out that patent claims, as the determination of the scope of patent protection, must be accurate and reasonable. While the technology closely integrated with the patent claims is always in a state of dynamic update. The update of technical terms is also a rapid iteration. If the interpretation cannot determine its meaning, the scope of protection of the patent right recorded in the claims will be unstable and cannot satisfy the dual attributes of the claims principle and the advertising principle. The second part of this article traces and sorts out the interpretation of patent claims, and comprehensively sorts out the method, principle, difficulty and history of claims interpretation. It refers to the mainstream interpretation method at the emergence stage. Including literal interpretation, equivalent interpretation and purpose-oriented interpretation. Correspondingly, the interpretation principle of claims includes the principle of peripheral limitation, the principle of central limitation and the principle of compromise. The third part of this article describes the rules for the interpretation of claims in the administrative process. Specifically, it lists the legislation for the interpretation of claims in 万方数据 2 the patent authorization and confirmation first. Then it discusses the legal application of claim interpretation in patent approval and confirmation, and finally summarizes the logic of claim interpretation in patent approval and confirmation. The fourth part of this article is about the interpretation rules of claims in the judicial process. Like the third part, it points out the legislative status of the interpretation of claims in patent infringement litigation first, and next analyzes the judicial practice of claim interpretation in patent infringement litigation through case studies, and finally, based on my own understanding, evaluate the progress of claim interpretation in patent infringement litigation. The fifth part of this article compares the interpretation rules of claims in the administrative link with the judicial link, and focuses on the conflict between the interpretation rules of the claims in the two different links. The first is the forms of conflict of interpretation rules in the administrative link and the judicial link, and describes both the consistency and the difference between the two, and then analyzes the reasons for the conflict between the two and the problems that the difference has caused and may cause. The sixth part of this article puts forward the author’s own resolutions and prospects of the conflict between the two. For the resolution of the conflict, the author believes that the scope of protection of the claims should be clarified as much as possible in the authorization process, and in the confirmation and infringement links should be limited the tolerance for the patentee appropriately. The seventh part of this article is the conclusion part.
  • dc.date.issued
  • 2025-12-31
回到顶部