摘要
知识产权指导性案例自发布以来备受关注,但囿于知识产权客体的非物质性、技术创新与制度间的非协同性、司法政策指导作用的介入因素及知识产权指导性案例自身的缺陷,导致知识产权指导性案例在现实应用中存在援引频次低、涵摄范围窄、案件储备少等问题。知识产权指导性案例对于弥补法律规范的滞后性、统一司法共识和法律适用具有重要意义。针对知识产权指导性案例在适用过程中存在的问题,最高人民法院发布知识产权指导性案例时,应当进一步提高撰写、概括裁判要点的专业能力,逐步扩大指导性案例的涵摄范围,统一法律规范与裁判要点,协调司法政策与指导性案例之间的关系,以此提高知识产权指导性案例的司法援引率,充分发挥知识产权指导性案例的制度价值和指导功能。
Intellectual property guiding cases have attracted much attention since their publication.But due to the object of intellectual property rights of non-material,the collaborative between technology innovation and institution,the judicial policy guidance intervention factors and intellectual property rights guide case itself defects,lead to the problems of low citation frequency,narrow scope of correspondence,and less case reserve in the practical application of intellectual property guiding cases.The guiding cases of intellectual property are of great significance to remedy the lag of legal norms and unify judicial consensus and law application.In view of the intellectual property rights in applied problems existing in the process of guiding cases,when the Supreme People's Court issues a guiding case for intellectual property,intellectual property shall further improve writing,summarizing the referee points of professional ability,gradually expanding the scope of the letter of guiding cases shoot,unified the referee points and legal norms,to coordinate the relationship between the instructional cases and judicial policy,in order to improve the judicial citing rate of intellectual property guiding cases,give full play to the institutional value and function of intellectual property guiding cases.
作者
董凡
李青文
Dong Fan;Li Qingwen
出处
《电子知识产权》
2022年第5期64-74,共11页
Electronics Intellectual Property
基金
教育部人文社会科学研究青年基金项目“功能主义视角下知识产权损害赔偿制度的基本原则研究”(项目编号:20YJC820010)
广州市哲学社会科学发展“十四五”规划2021年度共建课题“数字竞争语境下算法价格歧视的反垄断法规制研究”(项目编号:2021GZGJ232)
广东省教育厅青年创新人才类项目(人文社科)“基于广东金融创新的知识产权证券化实施逻辑与路径选择研究”(项目编号:2019WQNCX071)。
关键词
知识产权指导性案例
司法适用
裁判要点
司法政策
Intellectual Property Guiding Cases
Judicial Application
Eferee Points
Judicial Policy
作者简介
董凡,法学博士,广东技术师范大学讲师、南京大学法学院博士后研究员;李青文,法学博士,华东政法大学知识产权学院讲师、师资博士后。