【作者】 和育东；

【导师】 许传玺；

【作者基本信息】 中国政法大学 ， 民商法学， 2008， 博士

【摘要】 美国对专利侵权以强救济著称,其侵权赔偿数额之巨令人瞠目。本文的主题是,美国对专利侵权救济的强弱程度是否为“适当的”?如果结论是肯定的,那么美国的经验和做法是值得认真比较和借鉴的。在判断何为“适当”上,本文提出介于财产规则与责任规则之间的“相对财产规则”这一规范性基准。如果美国对具体救济规则的法律调整符合这一基准,表明其对专利侵权救济的强弱程度是适当的。本文运用法律经济学、历史分析、案例分析、比较研究等方法对美国专利侵权救济原则及规则进行剖析,以期得出科学的结论。把专利侵权救济控制在适当程度,这与专利制度的基本理论是相一致的。美国宪法的知识产权条款表明,制宪者将激励理论当作专利制度正当性的理论基础,激励理论是对专利侵权救济加以限制的理论基础。激励理论的不同形态对专利侵权救济有不同的指向,美国二十世纪下半叶发展起来的激励商业化理论,为加强对专利侵权救济的限制提供了理论支撑。进入二十一世纪以来,专利丛林问题凸显出来,根据扩展的反公地悲剧理论,专利丛林问题是由专利权的排他性所决定的,因此加大专利侵权救济的限制以解决专利丛林问题成为美国的法律选择。法律经济学将权利保护划分为财产规则与责任规则的理论,提供了评价专利侵权救济强弱的理论向度。从专利权的交易成本大小,似乎难以得出专利侵权救济选择财产规则抑或责任规则的应然结论。按照开普洛和塞维尔关于占有物/外部性权利二分理论,专利侵权救济的强度应介于财产规则与责任规则之间,本文定义为“相对财产规则”。具体救济规则的原初状态并不符合“相对财产规则”,因此需要法律调整以符合“相对财产规则”这一规范性救济水平。本文第二部分介绍美国如何对专利侵权救济具体制度的运行进行调整,并分析这些调整是否将专利侵权救济限制在“相对财产规则”的规范水平。美国专利侵权的救济方式分为衡平法救济与普通法救济。衡平法救济包括永久禁令、非法获利赔偿、初步禁令等。美国法院按照衡平法原则拒绝给予永久禁令救济,系就个案对专利权实行了“司法上的强制许可”。最高法院2006年的Ebay案判决强调了衡平法原则对永久禁令救济的限制,否定了近二十年来美国联邦巡回上诉法院将永久禁令“一般规则”化的做法,对加强永久禁令的限制具有重要意义。美国在1946年废除了非法获利赔偿,成为理论研究上的一个谜团,但从法院遭遇的理论困境和实践困境可以窥其端倪;从政策发展角度看,这也体现了美国对专利侵权救济的限制。初步禁令在专利侵权诉讼中不仅仅是一种程序性救济,对当事人实体权益也产生重大影响,美国按照“实体胜诉可能性”、“无法弥补的侵害”等四个因素对初步禁令给予极大的限制。美国的普通法救济即损害赔偿,具体计算方法包括所失利润与合理许可费两种。美国法院用“若非”事实因果关系对所失利润的赔偿范围加以限制,提出“Panduit四要件”检验法。二十世纪九十年代,美国联邦巡回上诉法院通过判例延伸了专利侵权赔偿范围的因果关系链条,比如State Industries案提出了市场份额原则;Rite-Hite案将所失利润赔偿范围扩及非专利竞争产品;King Instruments案进一步将所失利润赔偿扩及到在涉案专利没有被实施时的非专利竞争产品;等等。另一方面,美国法院对专利侵权赔偿范围给予适当的限制。在Rite-Hite案中引入法律因果关系上的近因原则,用可预见性理论对专利侵权赔偿范围作进一步限制,并对全部市场价值规则提出“功能性单元”的严格条件;BIC帆板案提出“同一市场”理论,在“Panduit四要件”之外增加了新的限制;特别是Grain Processing案将Panduit要件二中“可接受非侵权替代品”的范围从产品市场扩展到技术市场,企图将赔偿范围限制在专利技术的市场价值,使赔偿救济倾向于责任规则。在赔偿数额的计算上,美国要求以市场证据为基础,按照经济分析法确定赔偿数额,具有较强的客观性,比如按边际利润计算就比较科学地反映了如果没有侵权时专利权人的所失利润。由于美国对专利侵权救济给予适当限制,其救济水平总体上符合“相对财产规则”,其做法值得借鉴。通过中美专利侵权救济制度的比较,本文建议允许法院在一定情形下拒绝停止侵害救济;将诉前禁令改为起诉时禁令和诉中禁令,对禁令的审查实质化;改进所失利润赔偿的计算,将“合理利润”解释为边际利润,提高所失利润赔偿数额;减少法定赔偿的适用,降低判决的随意性。更多还原

【Abstract】 The U.S.is famous for its strong remedies for patent infringement, which can be shown by their astonishing damages for patent infringement. The thesis of the dissertation is whether the level of remedies for patent infringement imposed by the U.S.authorities is "proper"? If the answer is "yes",then the U.S.experience deserves comparison and reference.In deciding the standard of "proper",the dissertation come up with the normative "relative property rules",which is something between the property rules and liability rules.If the U.S.legal principles and rules are in consistant with the standard,we can say that the level of remedies for patent infringement is proper.The dissertation will use approaches including the law and ecomomics,historical meathod,case analysis,and comparative analysis,to explain and analysis the doctrines and rules of remedies for patent infringement in the U.S.Giving proper control on remedies for patent infringement is in accord with the theories of patent system.The words of U.S.Constitution article I （8） clause 8 implied that the incentive theory is the justification for patent system.The incentive theory should be the theoretical bedrock for the constraints on remedies for patent infringement.The different forms of incentive theory could be inferred to different guidelines on available remedies for patent infringement,among them is the incentive to commercializing inventions,a form of incentive theory developed in late twentieth century,which provides significant underpinnings for the constraints on remedies for patent infringement.Since the beginning of twenty-first century,the patent thicket problem has loomed large. According to the extended theory of anti-commons tragedy,the patent thicket problem roots in the "right to exclude" nature of patent,therefore constraints on remedies for patent infringement would be the legal measure for the U.S.authorities to deal with the problem.On Law and Economics,the main two important rules for protecting entitlements are property rules and liability rules,which can be regarded as a theoretical guideline to evaluate the strength of remedies for patent infringement.Analyzing the transaction costs of patent rights,It seems that we could not reach the "should be" decision to select either type of the rules to protect patent rights:property rules or liability rules.Louis Kaplow & Steven Shavell presented a new way to distinguish the two types of rules: if the entitlement is a possessory right,property rules should be referred to; if the entitlement is an externality interest,the liability rules should be referred to.According to Louis Kaplow & Steven Shavell’s theory,the remedies for patent infringement should be something between the property rules and liability rules,which we call it as "relative property rules".The specific remedy rules for patent infringement do not originally in consistent with the normative "relative property rules",therefore they need legal adjustment to fulfill the goal.The part 2 of the dissertation will introduce how the U.S.authorities adjust the specific remedy rules for patent infringement,and analysis whether these adjustments constrain the remedies for patent infringement in line with "relative property rules".The two types of available remedies for patent infringement in the U.S. are equitable remedies and damages.Equitable remedies include permanent injunction,illicit profits,and temporary injunction.A "judicial compulsory license" is made when a U.S.federal court denied the permanent injunction if the infringement established.In Ebay,the Court addressed the applicability of traditional principles of equity for permanent injunction, and reversed the "general rule" that an injunction will issue when infringement has been adjudged,as the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuits said in 1989.Ebay plays an important role in constraining the issuing of permanent injunctions.The 1946 patent law amendment repealed the remedy of illicit profits,which confused scholars very much.But we still can find that some theoretical and practical troubles faced by the courts are the main reasons to repeal.As far as the policy is concerned,the repeal reflected the authorities’ inclination to constrain the remedies for patent infringement.Preliminary injunction is not only a procedural remedy but also a substantive remedy.The U.S.courts constrain the issuing of preliminary injunction by "four factors test",which includes the likelihood of success on the merits,irreparable injury,and so on.There are two types of damages award given to patent holders as a result of infringement:lost profits and reasonable royalties.The U.S.courts constrain the scope of lost profits with "but for" causation in fact,which is usually measured by the "Panduit four elements" test.In nineties of twentieth century,the Federal Circuit expanded the scope of damages in some way.In State Industries,The Federal Circuit first approved of the calculation of lost profits based on market share.In Rite-Hite,the Federal Circuit held that a patent holder might recover lost profits for a device that is not covered by the infringed patent,if that device directly competes with the infringing device.In King Instruments,the Federal Circuit expanded the scope of damages by allowing the patent holder to recover lost profits for a product that competed with the infringing product,even though the patent holder had never made or sold the patented device.On the other hand,the U.S.courts imposed proper constraints on the scope of damages. In Rite-Hite,the Federal Circuit relied on proximate cause to further the constraints on the scope of damages by the forseeability theory,and imposed the "functional unit" requirement for the Entire Market Value Rule. In BIC,the Federal Circuit added the "same market" requirement to the "Panduit four elements" test.In Grain Processing,the Federal Circuit imposed a constraint on the damages award that takes into account reasonably foreseeable actions by the infringer,and extended the area in which to find "acceptable non-infringement alternatives" of 2^nd Panduit factor from product market to technology market,under which the remedies for patent infringement be close to liability rules.The calculation of damages award in U.S.courts are objective because it is required to be based on related market evidences and by the economic analysis.For example,the lost profits is computed using an incremental income approach,which scientifically reflects the true lost profits but for the infringement. Because of the proper constraints imposed by the U.S.courts on the remedies for patent infringement,its general remedy level is in consistent with the normative "relative property rules",and therefore the U.S. experience should be appreciated.By comparing the corresponding rules and doctrines between China and the U.S.,the dissertation made the following suggestions:allowing the courts to refuse "cease to infringe" remedy;transforming the "pre-litigation" injunction to "inter-litigation" injunction and examining it substantively;improving the way of calculating lost profits by interpreting the "proper profits" in the related China Supreme Court’s regulation as marginal profit to increase the amounts of lost profits;decreasing the application of statutory damages in order to lower the irregularity of judgments.更多还原