论文部分内容阅读
司法实践中法院判决后的胜诉方经常发现败诉方没有足够可被执行的有形财产,而债务人的知识产权却使债权人看到了实现债权的希望。作为企业财产的一部分,以知识产权作为强制执行对象有助于解决有形资产缺失带来的“执行难”问题。但是,债务人的知识产权能否作为民事执行标的,这是一个需要不断试错和验证的法律问题。美国的联邦法和判例实践在处置知识产权作为民事执行标的的问题上已相当成熟,这对我国知识产权作为民事执行标的之处分立法具有重要的借鉴意义。
In the judicial practice, the winning party after the verdict of the court often found that the losing party did not have enough tangible property to be enforced, while the debtor’s intellectual property made the creditors see the hope of realizing the claim. As part of corporate property, using intellectual property as the object of enforcement can help solve the “difficult implementation” issue brought about by the loss of tangible assets. However, whether the debtor’s intellectual property can be the subject of civil enforcement is a legal issue that requires constant trial and error. The United States’ federal law and precedent practice are quite mature in handling the issue of intellectual property as the subject of civil enforcement, which is of great reference significance to our country’s legislation on the disposition of intellectual property as the subject of civil enforcement.