法学院知识库

现有技术抗辩作为在专利侵权诉讼中独有的抗辩原则，已经受到了国际社会的普遍接受和认可。现有技术抗辩具体指的是，双方当事人在进行专利侵权诉讼过程中，被诉侵权人并没有必要直接通过行政程序来申请宣告专利权无效，可以直接在诉讼的过程中，提出证据证明自己所实施的技术为被公众所知的现有技术作为抗辩事由来对抗专利权利人提出的专利侵权之诉。

我国的专利制度已经有三十多年的历史，经过三十多年的发展，我国《专利法》进行了三次的修正，从这些修正可以表明，我国的专利制度正在日趋完善，逐步的向国际水准接近。在通过2008年新《专利法》修改后，现有技术抗辩这项原则在我国被正式确定下来。我国在对涉及实用新型和外观设计方面的专利仅仅只实行初步审查的模式，如果没有发现有任何理由驳回就会同意给予其专利权，更重要的是由于现代的信息检索方式多种多样，不可避免的就会导致一些不具备授予专利权的申请被授予专利权，从而产生出大量的瑕疵专利。这些瑕疵专利权的存在将会导致一些不可避免的专利侵权纠纷，现有技术抗辩作为被诉侵权人的一种救济方式虽然在国外已经存在多年，但目前对于我国来说，依然处于探索阶段。在司法实践中，现有技术抗辩的适用依旧存在许多问题，对现有技术抗辩的规定也比较原则，导致了法律工作人员和当事人在运用现有技术抗辩原则时比较困难，这就有待于我国的法律作出具体的规定。

本篇文章在绪论及第一部分对现有技术抗辩在专利侵权诉讼中当前的背景与“聚焦灯罩”案作出简要的介绍，并对案情作出初步的分析，得出案件争议焦点，引出全文。在文章的主要部分，首先，介绍了现有技术抗辩的基本概念性理论，详细阐述了现有技术抗辩的涵义、作用和意义，并对和现有技术抗辩容易混淆的相关其他原则作出比较。其次，通过国内外对现有技术抗辩在适用范围情况中存在的学说进行梳理，表明应当坚持全面适用现有技术抗辩以及对其的思考。再次，重点探讨现有技术抗辩的适用条件和在具体判定过程中的比对顺序与方法。最后，重新回顾案情，对判决结果进行分析并对专利侵权诉讼中双方当事人如何选择策略提出建议。

As a unique defense principle in patent infringement litigation, the existing technology defense has been widely accepted and recognized by the international community. Existing technology defense refers to, both parties involved in the process of patent infringement litigation, the defendant is not necessary directly through the administrative procedures to apply for invalidation of the patent right, but also can be directly in the process of litigation, provides evidence proving that their implementation of the technology for the existing technology is known to the public as a defense. The origin of human rights against the patent patent infringement lawsuit.

The patent system in our country has a history of thirty years, after thirty years of development, China's "patent law" of the three revision, from these amendments can show that the patent system of our country is gradually maturing, close to international standards. After the revision of the new patent law in 2008, the principle of existing technology defense has been formally established in china. In our country only implement the preliminary examination of the involved utility model and design patents only mode, if did not find any reason to reject it agreed to give the patent right, more important is due to a variety of modern information retrieval modes, inevitably will lead to some do not have the patent right for the patent right is granted. Thus, produce large numbers of patent defects. There will be these defects of the patent right to the patent infringement dispute some of the inevitable, the existing technology defense as an infringer relief while in foreign countries has been in existence for many years, but at present in China, is still in the exploratory stage. In judicial practice, apply the existing technology defense still has many problems, the provisions of existing technology defense is principle, leading to the legal staff and the parties more difficult in the use of existing technology defense, this is to be the law of our country to make specific provisions.

This article in the introduction and part of existing technology defense in patent infringement litigation in the background and focus on the shade "case made a brief introduction, and make a preliminary analysis of the case, the focus of controversy of the case, leads to the full text. In the main part of the article, firstly, introduces the basic concepts of the theory of existing technology defense, elaborates the meaning, function and significance of existing technology defense, and make a comparison of existing technology defense and other related principles of confusion. Secondly, through the domestic and foreign theory of the existing technology defense in the scope of the application of the theory to sort out, indicating that we should adhere to the full application of existing technology defense and its thinking. Thirdly, it focuses on the applicable conditions of the existing technology defense and the order and method of comparison in the process of specific judgment. Finally, the paper reviews the case, analyzes the result of the judgment, and puts forward some suggestions on how to choose the tactics of the parties in the patent infringement litigation.