“规范说”视角下确认不侵害知识产权之诉的证明责任分配  

The allocation of the burden of proof in non-infringement action of intellectual property from the perspective of “Normative Theory”

作　　者：黎弘博 Li Hongbo(Renmin University of China Law School,Beijing,100872)

机构地区：[1]中国人民大学法学院,北京100872

出　　处：《证据科学》2021年第6期721-734,共14页Evidence Science

摘　　要：《知产证据规定》第5条将确认不侵权之诉的范围扩大至整个知识产权领域,保障了知识产权相对人在被警告或投诉侵权后因知识产人怠于行使诉权而处于不安状态中的救济权利。基于消极确认之诉的特殊性,确认不侵害知识产权之诉中双方当事人较侵权诉讼的攻防地位发生转换,且原告当事人并无实体请求权。以致依"规范说"静态界定的知识产权侵权法律关系中的基础规范和抗辩规范,无法直接适用于具体诉讼的证明责任分配。对此,《知产证据规定》第5条赋予的程序性请求权能够作为衔接诉讼法和实体法的有机枢纽,将静态界定下的基础规范和抗辩规范动态地运用于司法实践中。Article 5 of the Intellectual Property Evidence Provisions extends the scope of confirming non-infringement action to the entire field of intellectual property, guaranteeing the relief right of the intellectual property counterpart in an uneasy state after being warned or complained of infringement due to the intellectual property owner’s negligence in exercising the right of action. Based on the particularity of the lawsuit of the negative confirmation, the offensive and defensive status of both parties in confirming non-infringement action of intellectual property has switched in the lawsuit of infringement, and the plaintiff has no right of substantive claims. So the basic norms and defense norms in the legal relationship of intellectual property infringement statically defined by the “Normative Theory” cannot be directly applied to the allocation of the burden of proof in specific litigation. In this regard, the right of procedural claim given by Article 5 of the Intellectual Property Evidence Provisions can be used as an organic hub for linking procedural law and substantive law, and the basic norms and defense norms under static definition can be dynamically applied to judicial practice.

关 键 词：确认不侵害知识产权之诉 证明责任分配 规范说 程序性请求权 

分 类 号：D915.13[政治法律—诉讼法学]