专利侵权纠纷行政处理制度的存废之辩

Debate Between Existence and Abolishment About Administrative Enforcement of Patent Infringement Disputes

行政处理与司法诉讼是我国专利侵权救济的并行路径,这种颇具特色的"双轨制"自建立伊始就受到一定质疑,理论界与实务界围绕"专利侵权纠纷行政处理制度应保留还是废除"的讨论始终纷争不断,莫衷一是。鉴于司法资源有限以及市场尚未成熟,"行政处理保留论"一度占据主要地位。但是,进一步分析后却发现,无论从行政执法的成本支出、行政处理的实际效率,还是域外专利保护的立法经验等方面加以考量,"行政处理保留论"所主张的诸多优势未必真正存在,无法得出支撑制度存续合理性与必要性的结论。因此,专利法修订必须在基本保护路径上作出理性且果断的选择,应考虑取消专利行政处理手段,打破"双轨制"并存的窠臼。相应地,须完善专利行政管理与服务职能,使其成为司法救济程序的实质性前置环节,真正实现"司法保护为主、行政保护为辅"科学制度设计。

Administrative handling and judicial proceedings are parallel ways to resolve patent infringement disputes. However, the ＂double-track protection system＂ has always been highly debated since its establishment, especially whether the administrative enforcement of patent infringement disputes is retained or abolished, scholars are constantly on this dispute. In view of the limited judicial resources and the market is not yet mature, ＂reservations of administrative handling＂ once occupied the main position. However, after further analysis, it was discovered that, regardless of the actual efficiency of administrative law enforcement costs, administrative processing, or foreign patent protection legislation experience to be considered, advantages advocated by ＂reservations of administrative handling＂ may not really exist. Therefore, the revision of the patent law must make rational and decisive choice in the basic protection path, should consider the abolition of administrative enforcement of patent infringement disputes. Breaking the ＂dual track＂ coexistence pattern, we must perfect the function of patent administration and service, truly realize scientific system design of ＂judicial protection primarily and administrative protection supplemented＂.