重复诉讼禁止及其在知识产权民事纠纷中的应用--基本概念解析、重塑与案例群形成

Ne bis in idem and its Application to Civil Intellectual Property Rights Disputes

《最高人民法院关于适用〈中华人民共和国民事诉讼法〉的解释》第247条是中国法中首次对重复诉讼禁止作出明文规定的一个尝试。由于该条所使用的关键术语——诉讼标的与诉讼请求——的含义不够确定,所以易于导致法律适用的不统一。解决这一问题的途径在于首先明确这两个概念的含义。针对诉讼标的,可以延续中国民事诉讼法所一贯遵循的旧实体法说,但应明确案件事实在识别诉讼标的过程中所发挥的作用。针对诉讼请求,则有必要确立一个不因诉讼标的理论的不同而变化的、恒定的诉讼请求概念。在此基础上,把民事诉讼法关于重复诉讼禁止的一般理论运用到知识产权民事纠纷之中,可以根据司法实践总结出若干案例群,并对法院的处理方式提出相应的解决方案。

Article 247 of the Interpretation of the Supreme People＇ s Court on the Application of the PRC Civil Procedure Law constitutes the first ever attempt to explicitly regulate ne his in idem in Chinese law. However, the ambiguity of the key concepts used in this article, namely cause of action and claim, is apt to result in inconsistency in the application of law. To solve this problem, it is necessary to first clarify the meanings of both concepts. Regarding cause of action, this article proposes to stick with the traditional old substantive law theory and to additionally determine the role played by facts in defining the cause of action. Regarding claim, it is essential to introduce a non-variable concept which is independent of the theories of cause of action. On this basis, this article applies the general theory of ne bis in idem to civil IPR disputes, summaries a number of case groups, and proposes cor- responding solutions to this problem in judicial practice.