新颖性、创造性审查过程中的举证责任分析

Analysis of the Burden of Proof in the Process of Novelty and Creative Review

谈及举证责任分配,最常谈及的就是“谁主张谁举证”,在民事诉讼法中,关于证明责任的分配有一般原则和具体情形下的举证责任分配,但是在专利实质审查过程中,关于审查员提出的、用以证明申请方案不具备新颖性、创造性的对比文件是否为现有技术的举证责任问题并没有很明确。本文借由对民诉法、行政诉讼法中的举证责任分配的简单梳理,以相关案例的处理方式进行分析,提出在新颖性、创造性审查过程中较为合理的举证责任分配和处理程序。

Involving the distribution of burden of proof, the most common is "who advocates who gives evidence". In the Civil Procedure Law, the distribution of burden of proof is divided into general principles and the allocation of burden of proof in specific situations. However, in the process of substantive examination of patents, it is not clear whether the comparative documents submitted by the examiners which are used to prove that the application is not novel and creative is the burden of proof for prior art. This paper analyzes the distribution of the burden of proof in the Civil Procedure Law and the Administrative Litigation Law, analyzes the treatment of relevant cases, and proposes a more reasonable allocation of evidence and procedures in the process of novelty and creative review.