NPE诉讼中的司法政策  

Judicial Policy in NPE Litigation

作　　者：易继明[1,2] Yi Jiming

机构地区：[1]北京大学国际知识产权研究中心 [2]北京大学法学院

出　　处：《知识产权》2023年第4期3-27,共25页Intellectual Property

摘　　要：专利非实施主体(NPE)拥有专利,但不从事实际生产,因此在专利许可谈判中缺乏与专利实施者的交互性。随着知识产权保护政策日益强化,一些旨在攫取高额许可费或寻求高额赔偿的投机型NPE逐步涌现,专利侵权诉讼成为其要挟目标对象的直接或间接手段。探讨NPE诉讼中的司法政策,应考虑到双方当事人在产业链中的不对称性,以及给技术创新、产业发展带来的不利影响,甚至由此导致的司法程序之异化。具言之,在诉讼管辖中,坚持“最密切联系原则”,根据“适当联系”的标准分层次建立积极的管辖权制度;在救济手段上,损害赔偿遵循填平原则,禁令仅适用于“反向劫持”等特殊情形;司法定价应以合理补偿为基础,遵循利益平衡原则,基于个案选取适当方式计算专利许可费率,并以此评估损害赔偿金额。Non-practicing entities(NPEs),which own patents but do not engage in actual practice,lack interaction with the implementers in patent licensing negotiations.With the increasingly strong protection of intellectual property rights,some speculative NPEs aiming at obtaining high license fees or seeking high damages have taken patent infringement litigations as their direct or indirect means to threaten the targeting implementers.To discuss the judicial policy in NPE litigation,we should take into account the asymmetry of the parties in the industry chain,the adverse impact on technological innovation and industrial development,and even the alienation of judicial procedures caused by it.Specifically,in terms of litigation jurisdiction,the principle of"the closest contact"should be adhered to,and a positive jurisdiction system should be established hierarchically according to the standard of"proper contact".In terms of remedies,damages should follow the principle of full compensation,and injunctions should only apply to special circumstances like"reverse hold-up".Moreover,judicial pricing should be based on reasonable compensation and in accordance with balance of interests,while the royalty rates should be calculated in an appropriate way for individual cases to help assess the amount of damages.

关 键 词：NPE诉讼 管辖 禁令 专利许可费率 司法定价 

分 类 号：D997.1[政治法律—国际法学]