摘要
等同原则作为专利侵权判定原则，一经问世就备受争议。即使是在专利大国的美国，联邦最高法院对於如何适用等同原则进行专利侵权判定，看法也经常摇摆不定。其中原因之一，在於法官认定等同侵权时，较多地行使自由裁量权，增加了判案的不确定因素。近年来，越来越多的中国法院在专利侵权诉讼中运用等同原则审理专利案件。在等同原则的适用中，需要在保护专利权人合法权益和保护公众利益之间寻求耳衡。本文试从一起被列为2004年浙江省十大知识产权典型案例的元大金属实业（深圳）有限公司诉天旗运动用品（宁波）有限公司实用新型专利侵权纠纷案入手，探讨等同原则的适用范围与合理的限制，以期更加准确地理解专利保护制度，真正做到在保护专利权人权益的同时。又不侵害公众利益。
As a doctrine for establishing infringement, the equivalent doctrine has been controversial since it came into being. Even in the United States of America, the Federal Supreme Court often wavers on how to apply the equivalent doctrine to the establishment of patent infringement, and one of the reasons is that judges, when deciding on equivalent infringement, often exercise the right of discretion, thus making the trial more uncertain or unpredictable. In recent years, more and more courts in China apply the equivalent doctrine to their trial of patent infringement cases. In applying the equivalent doctrine, it is necessary to keep a balance in the protection of the lawful rights and interests of the patentees and the interests of the public. This article will start with a discussion on the Yuanda Metal Industrial （Shenzhen） Co., Ltd. （Yuanda） v. the Tianqi Sports Products （Ningbo） Co.,
出处
《中国专利与商标》
2006年第1期10-20,共11页
China Patents & Trademarks
