|
|
|
| Application Control and Interpretation of the Constituent Elements of Patent Punitive Damages |
| Zhou Wenkang1,Fei Yanying2 |
| (1.School of Marxism, Dalian University of Technology；2.Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences，Dalian University of Technology，Dalian 116024，China) |
|
|
|
|
Abstract There has been a long-standing debate about the right and wrong of patent pinitive damages. The system of punitive damages in the modern sense originated from the development of the case law practice of common law. It began in the United States after the British case law and made great progress. Among them, based on the "high value" attribute of patent and the bottleneck of patent rights protection which is difficult to break, the system and practice of patent punitive compensation is particularly noticeable. From the perspective of legal technology and legal norms, domestic academic circles have fully demonstrated the institutional advantages, institutional tension and institutional function of patent punitive damages.The amended Patent Law of China which came into force on June1, 2021, officially introduced the punitive damages system. After the establishment of the patent punitive damages system, it should focus on solving the advanced problems in judicial application within the framework determined by the civil code and patent law, and promoting the implementation of the system in the interpretation of legal doctrines.#br#This paper mainly compares the judicial experience, proof standards and identification factors of the United States, starting from the judicial practice in China, uses a variety of legal methods to explain the subjective elements characterized by "intention" and refine the behavioral elements characterized by "seriousness". As for the judicial determination of the amount of patent punitive damages, this paper focuses on the different methods of base calculation by combining with the actual loss, infringement profit and the multiple of license fee, analyzes the practical elements of multiple determination, and defines the applicable relationship between punitive damages and statutory damages.#br#The results show that in terms of the identification of subjective and objective conditions, based on the consideration of interest measurement, the subjective state should be limited to "intention" and reasonable explanation should be made. The difficulty in practice often lies in the rejection of its identification factors. When considering the determination of intention, we can consider "analogical application" as appropriate. Due to the similar nature of rights, the relevant provisions of the trademark law can be applied in the patent field by analogy On the one hand, FTO should be used to limit the scope of application of "intention" and effectively avoid the risk of patent infringement. On the other hand, the government can establish a patent litigation risk analysis system to assist both parties in estimating the risk of patent litigation, strengthen the internal system design of patent risk identification and control, and guide enterprises to establish an integrated patent risk early warning mechanism. In addition, on the premise of distinguishing the identification elements and compensation elements, we make an overall judgment on the "seriousness", pay attention to the organic combination of "intention" and "seriousness", and jointly limit their scope of application according to their combination. As for the judicial determination of the amount of patent punitive damages, we compare from the perspective of the amount of compensation with the actual profits method which is used more frequently in judicial practice, although the amount calculated by the differential profits method will be less than that calculated according to the actual profits method. This method will significantly improve the infringer's willingness to actively prove the difference. Therefore, when calculating the base, we should reasonably consider the applicable space of the differential profits method, consider the practical factors both subjectively and objectively when determining the multiple, and position the legal compensation as pure compensatory compensation.#br#Based on the two-way perspective inside and outside the domain, this paper no longer focuses on the pros and cons of legislation. On the contrary, based on the legislation and judicial practice inside and outside the domain, this paper carries out the path innovation of interpretation theory, focuses on the standardization of judicial application and interpretation path, and grasps the dynamics and continuity of the change of constituent element standards as a whole. As for the different methods of base calculation, this paper advocates that the application possibility of differential profits method should be accepted in order to better balance the legitimate interests of obligees and infringers in case identification. At the same time, it considers the practical factors of multiple determination and straightens out the applicable relationship between punitive damages and statutory damages. The above points of view are not only conducive to reasonably avoiding the judicial abuse of system practice, but also helpful to realize the rational allocation of judicial resources. In short, the application control of constituent elements with interpretative theory should adhere to the positive and prudent judicial principle, timely adjust the interactive relationship between judicial practice and patent policy, and realize the functional separation and legal unity between constituent elements.#br#
|
|
Received: 25 July 2021
|
|
|
|
|
|
| [1] 肖海,常哲维.专利侵权损害中不宜引入惩罚性赔偿[J].北华大学学报(社会科学版),2018,19(3):67-72.[2] 盘佳.论惩罚性赔偿在专利侵权领域的适用——兼评《中华人民共和国专利法修改草案(征求意见稿)》第65条[J].重庆大学学报(社会科学版),2014,20(2):115-122.[3] 丁文严,张蕾蕾.知识产权侵权惩罚性赔偿数额的司法确定问题研究[J].知识产权,2021，35(2):72-86.[4] 张武军,张唯玮.专利侵权惩罚性赔偿问题研究[J].科技进步与对策,2019,36(20):121-127.[5] 宫晓艳,刘畅.知识产权惩罚性赔偿适用的要件解构与路径探究——以上海首例知识产权惩罚性赔偿案件为研究范例[J].法律适用,2020，35(24):149-159.[6] 毛牧然.专利侵权损害赔偿政策与制度的改进——以专利侵权的过错类型为依据[J].科学学研究,2012,30(6):841-847.[7] 吴汉东.知识产权惩罚性赔偿的司法基础与司法适用[J]. 法学评论,2021,39(3):21-33.[8] 周金城，吴俊彦. 论专利法之惩罚性赔偿[J]. 月旦法学杂志，2005，15(118):107-124.[9] 柯婷婷,李慧.中国开展专利防侵权检索分析（FTO）的特点探究[J].专利代理,2020，16(4):7-16.[10] 贺宁馨,许可,董哲林.专利诉讼的风险分析及其对企业专利战略的影响研究[J].科学学与科学技术管理,2018,39(7):65-73.[11] CHRISTOPHER B S.Willful patent infringement and enhanced damages after in re seagate: an empirical study[J]. Iowa Law Review, 2012，97(2):417-471.[12] HYLTON K N.Enhanced damages for patent infringement: a normative approach[J]. The Review of Litigation,2017,36（2）：417-441.[13] 管育鹰.试析侵害知识产权惩罚性赔偿的适用条件[J].法律适用,2021，36(1):43-52.[14] 吕柔慧.美国专利惩罚性赔偿解析——以2016年联邦最高法院Halo Electronics Inc. v. Pulse Electronics Inc.为中心[J].交大法学评论,2017，26(2):217-248.[15] 苏泽儒.知识产权侵权惩罚性赔偿制度探究[J]. 社会科学动态,2021，34(4):49-59.[16] 和育东. 美国专利侵权救济制度研究[D].北京：中国政法大学,2008.[17] 陈中山. 知识产权损害赔偿中如何科学合理计算权利人实际损失[EB/OL].[2021-02-27].https://www.sohu.com/a/224378542_221481.[18] 胡晶晶.论日本专利侵权“所失利益”的法律性质：“可推翻之推定”[J].知识产权,2021,35(3):84-96.[19] 沈宗伦. 论专利贡献度于专利权损害赔偿之法理与实践——以专利法97条第1项第2款为中心[J]. 万国法律, 2019(226):29. [20] 沈宗伦. 专利侵权者所得利益与损害赔偿计算之新视野——以智慧财产法院104年度民专诉字第50号判决为中心[J]. 月旦法学杂志, 2019，29(295):154.[21] 赵歆,刘晓海. 加拿大专利赔偿案件计算侵权人利润法及启示[J]. 科技管理研究,2014,34(20):142-147.[22] DURIE D J,LEMLEY M A.A structured approach to calculating reasonable royalties[J]. Lewis & Clark Law Review, 2010，14（2）：627-651.[23] 叶云卿. 专利救济法理的新思维——以美国专利诉讼近期法院见解为主轴[J]. 专利师, 2014，14(14): 83.[24] 李晶,林秀芹.专利侵权惩罚性赔偿的法经济学分析[J].国家行政学院学报,2016，18(3):92-96.[25] 袁晓东,蔡学辉,许艳霞.我国专利侵权赔偿制度实施效果及法定赔偿数额影响因素研究[J].情报杂志,2017,36(5):192-198.[26] 尹志锋,梁正.我国专利侵权诉讼赔偿额的影响因素分析[J].中国软科学,2015，30(12):12-24.[27] 李晓桃,袁晓东.揭开专利侵权赔偿低的黑箱:激励创新视角[J].科研管理,2019,40(2):65-75.[28] 孙玉荣,李贤. 我国知识产权惩罚性赔偿制度的法律适用与完善建议[J]. 北京联合大学学报(人文社会科学版),2021,19(1):101-109.[29] 刘军华,叶明鑫.知识产权惩罚性赔偿与法定赔偿的协调适用[J].中国应用法学,2021，5(1):115-131.[30] 焦和平.知识产权惩罚性赔偿与法定赔偿关系的立法选择[J].华东政法大学学报,2020,23(4):130-143. |
|
|
|
