專利確權的屬性重釋與模式選擇

發明創造獲得專利權之後，對專利權效力的審查存在行政和司法兩種確權模式，多數國家以一種模式為主，輔之另外一種模式進行矯正。我國專利確權采取的是行政模式，產生了程式冗長、關聯訴訟、角色錯位等問題。從申請人角度看，專利確權反映的是發明創造最終應否獲得專利權的問題；從確權機構角度看，專利確權體現了行政確認的屬性，具有一定的財產管理性質。就專利權而言，發明人的貢獻是權利基礎，國家專利行政機構的“登記”是行政確認，具有劃定權利邊界的功能。在管理知識財產的方法上，存在著事先管理和事後管理兩種方法，不同的財產形態采取了不同的管理方法。在國家專利行政機構和司法機構之間，對專利采取哪種管理方法，重要的考量要素是效率。我國《專利法》應當引入司法確權，對其許可權進行合理配置，以克服行政確權的局限。

After an invention is patented, the validity of the patent can be examined through administrative or judicial proceedings. Most countries adopt one as the primary approach and supplement it with another. China adopts the administrative proceeding to examine the validity of patents, causing problems like lengthy proceedings, correlative lawsuits, and rolesmisalignment. From the applicant’s point of view patent validity examination shows whether a patent should be granted; from the examiners, Patent validity examination reflects the attribute of administrative affirmation, also with a certain nature of property management. As for patent rights, the foundation of such rights is the inventor’s contribution. Examination and registration by national patent administrative agency are administrative affirmation to demarcate the boundaries of rights. Ex-ante management and ex-post management are the two ways to manage intellectual property, deciding by the forms of property. Efficiency is critical for deciding which management way should be adopted for patents between administration and judiciary. The Chinese Patent Law should introduce the approach of judicial examination and reasonably allocate its authority to overcome the limitations of administrative proceedings.