发明专利临时保护制度的认定规则与行为界定

Identification Rules and Behavioral Definition of Provisional Protection for Invention Patents

摘要:

发明专利临时保护是专利法“早期公开，延迟审查”安排下平衡专利权人利益的制度设计，然而在完成从指导案例到司法解释的转向后仍然存在模糊地带，制度促进科技创新与新质生产力发展的作用并非充分实现。分析现有发明专利临时保护案件司法判决，发现案情呈现复杂，案件中亟待解决的核心问题是发明专利临时保护范围及各阶段行为定性，解决以上疑问需由制度设计发力。发明专利临时保护制度应当打开沟通技术与产业的窗口，为权利人界定准确的权利范围，为同产业内留下合理的技术实施空间，通过法律杠杆撬动产业现代化转型的实践。因此，发明专利临时保护的认定规则应当受到确权机制的制约，引入专利侵权抗辩，留有充分的社会技术实施地带。司法实践中的疑问造成创新与制度的鸿沟，应当以制度设计初心审视，批判吸收域外经验，将选择权利交予权利人的同时，给予社会公众安定进行技术实践的环境，并以此为目标完善制度的应用逻辑，在新视角的洞察中激发制度的强大生命力，彰显制度的新时代价值意蕴。

Abstract:

Provisional protection for invention patents is a system designed to balance the interests of patentees under the "early publication, deferred examination" arrangement of patent law. However, even after transitioning from guiding cases to judicial interpretations, ambiguities remain, and the system's role in promoting technological innovation and new quality productive forces development has not been fully realized. Through analyzing existing judicial judgments on invention patent temporary protection cases, it is observed that the case demonstrates complex characteristics. The core issues requiring urgent resolution involve defining the scope of temporary protection for invention patents and characterizing behaviors at various implementation stages. Addressing these challenges necessitates systematic institutional design efforts. The provisional protection system for invention patents should open a window for communication between technology and industry, define accurate rights for patentees, leave reasonable space for technological implementation within the same industry, and leverage legal mechanisms to drive industrial modernization. Therefore, the rules for identifying provisional protection for invention patents should be constrained by rights confirmation mechanisms, introduce patent infringement defenses, and provide sufficient space for social technological implementation. The uncertainties in judicial practice have created a gap between innovation and the system. It is necessary to re-examine the original intent of the system design, critically absorb foreign experiences, and empower patentees with choice while providing a stable environment for the public to engage in technological practices. This should be the goal for improving the application logic of the system, unleashing its vitality through new perspectives, and highlighting its value in the new era.