论专利申请人之现有技术披露义务被引量：11

The Duty of Prior Art Disclosure During Patent Application

导出

摘要问题专利产生了严重的社会后果,提高专利授权质量具有迫切性。高质量的现有技术检索是提高专利授权质量的前提,这在专利申请数量巨大的背景下显得尤为重要。专利申请人及其代理人在专利审查过程中,应向专利审查部门依诚信原则披露其所知悉的、对申请案之可专利性具有关键性价值的参考资料。建立具有法律效力的现有技术披露义务符合专利制度的立法目的和利益平衡原则,节约现有技术检索的社会成本,从而保障专利审查中现有技术检索的质量。我国《专利法》第36条规定了该义务,但没有规定相应的法律后果。我国应通过立法和司法两方面来完善申请人的现有技术披露义务。 Problem patents have resulted serious social consequences,which call for the improvement of patent quality.During the patent examination,the patent applicant associated with the filing of the patent are required to act with good faith,and to disclose all the known information to the patent office which is material to the patentability of their application.A binding duty meet the legal purpose of patent system and the doctrine of interests-balancing,it also may save the social costs and improve the quality of the search of prior art,which,in end,may safeguard the patent quality.Art.36 of the Patent Law,in which there are no corresponding legal liabilities,provides the duty of prior art disclosure for patent applicant.China shall establish and improve the duty of prior art disclosure thorough the legal reform and judiciary.

作者梁志文

机构地区中国社会科学院法学研究所

出处《法律科学（西北政法大学学报）》 CSSCI 北大核心 2012年第1期130-138,共9页 Science of Law：Journal of Northwest University of Political Science and Law

基金教育部人文社会科学研究青年项目(10YJC820066)

关键词现有技术披露义务现有技术检索专利审查不公平行为原则 duty of prior art disclosure search on prior art patent examination doctrine of inequitable conduct

分类号 D923.42 [政治法律—民商法学]

引文网络
相关文献

参考文献13

1Scott Baker, Can the Courts Rescue Us from the Patent Crisis[J]. 88 Texas L. REV. 595, 599 (2010).
2[日]吉藤幸朔.专利法概论[M].宋永林,魏启学,译.北京:专利文献出版社,1990.
3Robert J. Goldman, Evolution of the Inequitable Conduct Defense in Patent Litigation[J]. 7 HARV. J. L. &TECH. 37, 51(1993).
4Christian E. Mammen, Controlling the "Plague" : Reforming the Doctrine of Inequitable Conduct[J]. BERKLEY TECH. L.J. 1329, 1335 (2009).
5Christopher A Cotropia, Modernizing Patent Law's Inequitable Conduct Doctrine[J]. 24 BERKLEY TECH. L. J. 723,841(2009).
6Russell S. Magaziner, The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office' s Proposed Information Disclosure Statement Rules: Too Novel and Nonobvious[J]. 83 INDIANA L. J. 719,726-27 (2008).
7Vincenzo Denicol6 & Luigi Alberto Franzoni, The Contract Theory of Patents [J]. 23 INT' L REV. L. & ECON. 365, 366 (2OO4).
8R. Polk Wagner, Understmlding Patent-Quality Mechanisms [ J] . 157 U. PENNSYLVANIA L. REV. 2135 (2009).
9NOTE. The Disclosure Function of the Patent System (or Lack Thereof) [J]. 118 HARV. L. REV. 2007, 2025 (2005).
10Mark A. Lemley, Rational Ignorance at the Patent Office[J].95 NW. U. L. REV. 1495, 1510 (2001).