美国专利侵权纠纷中电商平台责任的认定及其思考——兼评Blazer诉eBay案简易判决  

Thoughts on Electronic Commerce Platform Responsibility in Patent Infringement Disputes in the United States——Comment on Summary Judgment of Blazer v. eBay

作　　者：武善学[1] WU Shan-xue(School of law,Shandong Institute of Business and Technology,Shandong Yantai 264005,China)

机构地区：[1]山东工商学院法学院,山东烟台264005

出　　处：《科技与法律》2018年第3期46-53,共8页Science Technology and Law

基　　金：山东省社科规划项目"我国海洋产业知识产权战略研究"(14CFXJ12);教育部人文社会科学研究一般项目规划基金项目"通知移除规则在电商平台专利侵权中的适用研究"(17YJA820033)

摘　　要：美国阿拉巴马州地方法院近期对Blazer诉e Bay案作出简易判决,该判决并未直接适用通知移除规则,而是适用侵权法中间接侵权责任认定的基本规则,明确了电商平台不构成专利直接侵权、引诱侵权以及辅助侵权,阐释了专利侵权中电商平台过错的认定标准,完善了实际知道和故意视而不见的认定考量因素。这是与美国司法实践和司法理念相吻合的,有其合理之处。但是,这与我国的司法实践有很大的差别,根源在于法律对通知移除规则性质的界定不同,体现了不同国家在处理网络环境下专利侵权纠纷时公共政策考量的差异。U.S. District Court N.D. of Alabama recently makes a summary judgment on Blazer v. e Bay. The judgment does not directly apply the＂Notice and take-down＂rule, but applies the basic rules of indirect infringement liability in tort law. It clarifies that the electronic commerce platform does not constitute the direct, contributory and inducing infringement, explains the identification standard of electronic business platform fault in patent infringement, and improves the identification consideration factors of actual knowledge and willful blindness. The judgment is consistent with American judicial practice and judicial philosophy, and has its own rationality. But it is very different from China＇s judicial practice. The reason is that the two countries have different understanding of the nature of the＂Notice and take-down＂rule, which reflects the different public policy considerations when dealing with patent infringement disputes under network environment.

关 键 词：通知移除规则 许诺销售 引诱侵权 实际知道 故意视而不见 

分 类 号：D013.4[政治法律—政治学]