|
| 文章编号：1672-3104(2017)02-0068-08 |
| |
|
强制许可中半导体技术的“乱入”之谜——兼谈与合法来源抗辩条款的衔接 |
| |
杨正宇 |
| |
|
（厦门大学知识产权研究院，福建厦门，361005） |
| |
| 摘 要： 我国《专利法》强制许可一章第48—51条规定了6种强制许可的适用事由，第52条却非常突兀地针对半导体技术规定了强制许可适用限制条款。强制许可制度中半导体技术的“乱入”谜题直接源于TRIPS协议第31条(c)款的规定。这一规定看似是美国谈判代表团在Dunkel草案版本谈判最后时刻的临时起意，实质上是基于1984年《半导体芯片保护法案》善意侵权制度的长期争论与酝酿，同时受到美国半导体产业的大力推动的结果。作为应对，我国可以从适用合法来源抗辩条款、拓展强制许可适用事由、放宽善意侵权人免责条件、推进国际条约相关条款的解释与修订等方面着手。 |
| |
| 关键词： 半导体技术；强制许可；集成电路布图设计；善意侵权；合法来源抗辩 |
| |
|
| |
On the mystery of interruption of semiconductor clause in compulsory license: Also on the clause of counterplea of legal resource |
| |
YANG Zhengyu |
| |
（Research Institute of Intellectual Property, Xiamen University, Xiamen 361005, China） |
| |
| Abstract: Article 48 to Article 51 of Chapter Four of our Patent Law stipulate 6 subjects applying compulsory license, while Article 52, all of sudden, excludes application of compulsory license to semiconductor technology. Such “mystery” of interruption of semiconductor clause in compulsory license arose from Article 31 (c) of TRIPS. This clause, added to Dunkel Draft at the last minute by American deputies, was actually based on innocent infringement of Semiconductor Chip Protection Act (1984) and was strongly supported by American semiconductor industry after fierce negotiation. To address this issue, China may apply counterplea of legal resource, widen causes of compulsory license, broaden exemption condition of innocent infringer, and promote the interpretation and revision of relevant clauses in international treaties. |
| |
Key words: semiconductor technology; compulsory license; designs of integrated circuits; innocent infringement; counterplea of legal resource |
| |
|
