The Limiting of Injunctive Relief for Infringement on Patent-Based on the Article 26 of the Interpretation of Patent Ⅱ
-
摘要:中国专利停止侵害请求权的规定主要源自于民法上对有体物的规定。囿于传统民法理论，侵权即判令停止侵害业已成为专利领域的司法惯例。专利司法解释（二）第26条被视为是侵权当然停止论的突破。但中国现行专利权制度并没有就其中的公共利益及合理费用等概念进行厘定。美国在禁令否决和替代性措施方面进行了有益的尝试和探索。从中国专利停止侵害请求权限制的立法沿革及现有的司法实践上看，公共利益与企业性质以及专利性质无关，应当严格界定在《与贸易有关的知识产权协定》规定的公共安全、公共卫生等领域内。当权利人滥用专利危害社会公共利益时，也可适用第26条。合理费用不同于自愿专利许可使用费和强制许可的许可费，而应是在给予侵权人充分救济的前提下对权利人损失的合理补偿。在合理费用界定方面，可以通过借鉴美国乔治太平洋案所确定的15种因素来进行判定未来使用费。此外，专利停止侵害请求权限制不应扩展到诉前禁令。Abstract:The provisions of patent infringement claim in our country mainly originated from regulations of the real right object in the civil law. Confined to the traditional theory of civil law, it has become a common practice in the field of patent. Article 26 of Patent Law Judicial Interpretation(Ⅱ)is regarded as a breakthrough. It is difficult to define the public interest and reasonable costs. The current patent system in our country has not defined these concepts above as well. The United States has made useful attempts in the application of restrictions on injunction and alternative measures. From the legislative evolution and the existing judicial practice, the public interest has nothing to do with the nature of the enterprise and the nature of the patent. It should be strictly limited in the areas such as public safety, public health, which have been stipulated by TRIPs. Article 26 may also apply when the patentee abuses the patent against the public interest. Reasonable costs are different from the voluntary royalties and compulsory licensing fees, however, it should be the full relief given to the infringer under the premise of the loss of reasonable compensation for the right. In the definition of reasonable costs, the case Georgia-Pacific which founded 15 factors to determine the future use fee brings instructive enlightenment. In addition, the patent infringement claims restriction should not be extended to temporary restraining order.
-
[1] MITCHEL G S. Implementing eBay:new problem in guiding judicial discretion and enforcing patent rights[J]. J.Pat. & Trademark Off. Soc'Y,2006,88(2):747-792. [2] 吴汉东. 试论知识产权的"物上请求权"与侵权赔偿请求权——兼论《知识产权协议》第45条规定之实质精神[J]. 法商研究(中南政法学院学报),2001(5):3-11. [3] ANDREW C M. TRIPS eBay and denials of injunctive relief:is article 31 compliance everythingÄ[J]. Columbia Law School Science and Technology Law Review,2009,10(4):232-263. [4] 董炳和. 技术创新法律保障制度研究:以知识产权制度为中心进行的考察[M]. 北京:知识产权出版社,2006:333-350. [5] 刘婧. 统一细化专利侵权裁判标准.营造有利于创新的法治环境——最高人民法院民三庭负责人就专利法司法解释(二)答记者问[N]. 人民法院报,2016-03-23(3). [6] COLLEEN V C,MARK A L. Patent holdup the ITC and the public interest[J]. Cornell Law Review,2012(98):1-46. [7] 李剑. 专利法司法解释(二)第24条之解读[J]. 竞争政策研究,2016(2):37-40. [8] 约翰·罗尔斯. 正义论[M]. 何怀宏,何包钢,廖申白,译. 北京:中国社会科学出版社,1988:266-268. [9] Gene R S. Federal injunctions and the public interest[J]. The George Washington Law Review 1982-1983(51):382-420. [10] SCOTT A A. "Justifying" the public interest in patent litigation[J]. Indiana Law Journal,2013(88):1047-1088. [11] LEMLEY M A,SHAPIRO C. Patent holdup and royalty stacking[J]. Texas Law Review,2007(85):1991-2048. [12] 陈锐熊. 民法总则新论[M]. 台北:三民书局,1983:913-930. [13] 沈宗伦. 专利排除侵害之相对性与衡平法理[J]. 月旦法学杂志,2016(6):96-128. [14] 李军, 杨志祥. 专利侵权不停止侵害的替代措施研究[J]. 知识产权,2016(10):39-43. [15] MICHAEL C B. Compulsory licenses in the aftermath of eBay inc. v. MercExchange,L.L. C.:the courts' authority to impose prospective compensatory relief for patent infringement[J]. The Federal Circuit Bar Journal,2008(17):699-720. [16] 李扬, 许清. 知识产权人停止侵害请求权的限制[J]. 法学家,2012(6):75-92+176. [17] 张玲. 论专利侵权诉讼中的停止侵权民事责任及其完善[J]. 法学家,2011(4):106-117. [18] 吴汉东. 知识产权总论[M]. 北京:中国人民大学出版社,2013:96-100. [19] 陈武. 权利不确定性与知识产权停止侵害请求权之限制[J]. 中外法学,2011(2):357-368. [20] 张学博. 专利侵权诉前禁令程序中的"公共利益理论"研究[J]. 科技与法律,2013(4):57-66. -
点击查看大图
计量
- 文章访问数:694
- HTML全文浏览量:1
- PDF下载量:392
- 被引次数:0
下载:
