美国337调查与TRIPS协议实体规定冲突问题研究

A Research on the Conflict of Substantial Provisions between Section 337 and TRIPS Agreement

337条款的ITC诉讼与地区法院诉讼间在程序和实体方面的差异是GATT专家组异议的中心和争议双方分歧的焦点问题之一,GATT/WTO迄今尚无明确裁决结果。该条款存在一定合理性,但在某些方面不符合TRIPS要求。美国国内专利持有人在与国内生产者间关于专利侵权的争端中,仅能从美国国内法院寻求救济,而该专利持有人在同外国生产者的专利争端中却享有救济途径"选择权",实际上获得双重救济机会。外国生产者被剥夺了救济途径的选择权,且增加了讼累,事实上造成不公平结果,构成对外国产品和国民的歧视。国民待遇应是实质上而非仅是形式上。应依WTO协定判断该条款的合条约性,而非仅依其实施效果。二者在立法目的、价值选择、基本原则等方面存在差异。TRIPS本身并不禁止337条款之类的边境措施,但该措施应符合WTO协定。使国内外被告人适用于相同机制是解决冲突的可能途径。

That there are differences between ITC litigation proceedings and district court litigation in procedural and substantial aspects has become one of the focus problems among the GATT panel and parties.So far there has no clear decision from GATT/WTO.Section 337 has certain rationality,but in some ways is not in conformity with the TRIPS provisions.American patent holders,who has disputes with domestic producers about patent infringement,can only seek relief from American court.However,the patent holder has the option of the relief ways in patent cases concerned with foreign producers,resulting in double relief opportunities,while foreign producers are deprived of the choice of relief way as well as increased litigation burden,causing actual unfair results and forming discrimination against foreign products and nationals.National treatment should be substantial rather than just in form.The legality of Section 337 should be evaluated according to the WTO agreements rather than only to its enforcement effect.There exist differences in the legislative purpose,value choice and basic principles.TRIPS itself does not prohibit such border measures as Section 337,which should comply with the WTO agreement.One possible solution is to apply the same mechanism to the defendants at home and abroad.