证据保全公证的主体资格研究——以知识产权案件审理的司法实践为视角

Research on subject qualification in the notarization of evidence preservation——From the perspective of judicial practice in the trial of intellectual property cases

在知识产权诉讼案件中,代理机构以自己的名义申请证据保全公证的情况越来越多。我国法院对代理机构参加诉讼的法律地位有三种不同的理解:一是代理关系;二是利害关系;三是混合关系,其缘由在于大部分证据保全公证当事人就是诉讼当事人。然而,法院将这种一般规则适用在证据保全公证中混淆了证据保全的公证当事人和诉讼当事人的区别,加之公证当事人的定义之规定对法院并无约束力,导致了在公证司法实践中的不良后果。当前,解决证据保全公证当事人主体资格问题的有效路径在于根据公证类型,采用一般条款和特殊条款的方式区别规定公证当事人,并将上述条款从部门规章升格到公证法之中,从而使该条款对法院具有强制约束力。

In intellectual property litigation cases,agencies are increasingly applying for notarization of evidence preservation in their own name.China’s courts have three different understandings of the legal status of agents participated in litigation:one is agency relationship;the other is interest relationship;and the third is mixed relationship,for the reason is that most of the evidence preservation notary parties are litigants.However,the application of this general rule by the court to the notarization of evidence preservation confuses the distinction between evidence preservation notary parties and litigants,plus the definition of notary parties is not binding on the court,resulting in the bad consequences in the judicial practice of notarization.At present,the way to resolve the subject qualification of the evidence preservation notary party is to distinguish the notary parties according to the type of notarization,using general and special clauses,and upgrade the above clauses from the departmental rules to the notary law,so that the clause has mandatory binding to the courts.