论文部分内容阅读
2014年6月,美国最高法院对Akamai v.Limelight案~1一锤定音,判决指出:让诱导方承担侵权责任的前提是,必须有单方因为执行方法的所有步骤而构成直接侵权;照此标准,由于没有任何一家公司执行Akamai方法权利要求的所有步骤,因此不存在直接侵权,没有直接侵权,就谈不上诱导侵权。本文以此为视角,探讨我国法律框架下的专利间接侵权问题。笔者认为,此问题可以适用《侵权责任法》,但须严格把握适用条件、慎重考虑利益平衡、适当考虑撰写质量,既要借鉴美国成功经难,又要结合我国具体国情,不能打破专利法及司法解释构筑的完整救济体系。尤其是,不能架空专利侵权构成要件和全面覆盖原则,也不能伤及不构成侵权的行为和不视为侵权的行为。
In June 2014, the Supreme Court of the United States settled the blunder of Akamai v. Limelight. The judgment pointed out that it is preconditions for the inducer to bear tort liability that there must be a unilateral infringement by all steps of the method of execution. According to this standard, No single company has implemented all the steps of Akamai’s method claims, so there is no direct infringement, there is no direct infringement, there is no reason to induce infringement. This article takes this as the angle of view, probes into the question of patent infringement under the legal framework of our country. The author believes that this issue can be applied to “tort law”, but to strictly apply the conditions, carefully consider the balance of interests, with due consideration to the quality of writing, we must learn from the success of the United States, but also with China’s specific national conditions, can not break the patent law and Judicial Interpretation to build a complete relief system. In particular, the elements of the patent infringement and the principle of full coverage can not be overstated nor do they infringe on acts that do not constitute infringement and that do not amount to infringement.