论专利有效性争议仲裁制度的模式选择与规则构建  

作　　者：谢林轩 张淑钿(指导)[1] 

机构地区：[1]深圳大学法学院

出　　处：《商事仲裁与调解》2024年第6期21-33,共13页Commercial Arbitration & Mediation

摘　　要：长期以来,我国将专利有效性争议定性为行政争议,并由行政主管部门处理,不允许通过仲裁解决,这带来了专利确权周期过长、成本过高、程序嵌套等问题。基于专利权的私权属性,专利有效性争议具有民商事争议性质,且仲裁裁决仅具有相对效力,不会与国家专利登记簿的公信力相冲突。专利有效性仲裁虽涉及社会公共利益,但不必然违背社会公共利益。近年来,域外国家或地区逐步通过修改实体法或程序法或司法渐进改良等不同模式,允许通过仲裁解决专利有效性争议。我国应修改《专利法》,明确专利有效性争议的可仲裁性,并规定仲裁程序与专利行政确权程序互不抵触,且仲裁裁决不能仅因与行政决定结论不同而被撤销或不予执行。For a long time,China has classified patent validity disputes as administrative disputes which are resolved by the administrative authority,without allowing them to be resolved through arbitration,which has led to problems such as long patent confirmation cycles,high costs,and nested procedures.Based on the private nature of patent right,patent validity disputes have the attribute of commercial disputes,and arbitral awards only have effect inter partes and therefore will not conflict with the credibility of the national register of patents.Although patent validity dispute arbitration involves public interests,it does not necessarily violate public interests.In recent years,foreign countries and regions have adopted different modes such as amending substantive law,amending procedural law,or progressive reform by the judiciary,allowing patent validity disputes to be resolved through arbitration.China should amend the Patent Law to approve the arbitrability of patent validity disputes,and further clarify that arbitration procedure and patent administrative confirmation procedure are not mutually exclusive and arbitral awards should not be set aside or refused to enforce solely due to differences between the conclusions of these two procedures.

关 键 词：专利有效性 可仲裁性 民事争议 仲裁相对性 

分 类 号：D923.42[政治法律—民商法学] D925.7[政治法律—法学]