公共政策理论视角下我国知识产权司法保护的实践逻辑

The Practical Logic of Judicial Protection of Intellectual Property in China from the Perspective of Public Policy Theory

公共政策理论既能够为知识产权制度的建立提供契合性的解释,也能够扩展至知识产权制度的执行层面,为我国知识产权司法保护提供相应的理论方案。当前,我国知识产权司法保护正面临着因诉讼投机引发的民事案件“爆炸”、权利的扩张导致对后续创新的阻碍、对政策的高度依赖而有损司法品格的危机。在公共政策理论的指引下,坚持社会本位与实用主义的司法立场,在实体规则和程序规则两方面进行实践创新,充分发挥出司法的法律调整功能与社会治理功能,是我国知识产权司法保护可遵循的实践逻辑。但是公共政策理论也存在着解释力上的边界,在法治精神的要求下,司法的上述作为也应当进行严格的限制:一方面,司法应当保持中立、被动的基本底色,明晰自身角色定位,与其他社会机制共同完成激励创新的政策目标;另一方面,司法应当恪守自身权力职责,在实现政策目标的过程中对司法自由裁量权和能动性进行严格规范,谦抑而谨慎地行使权力。

Public policy theory can not only provide a consistent explanation for the establishment of intellectual property system, but also extend to the implementation level of intellectual property system, and provide correspondingly theoretical schemes for the practice of judicial protection of intellectual property in China. At present, the judicial protection of intellectual property in China is facing the "explosion" of civil cases caused by speculative litigations, the obstruction of follow-up innovation caused by the expansion of rights, and the crisis of undermining the judicial character because of its high dependence on policy. Under the guidance of public policy theory, the practical logic of judicial protection of intellectual property in China is to adhere to the judicial position of society standard and pragmatism, carry out practical innovation in both substantive and procedural rules, and give full play to the legal and social functions of justice. However, there are boundaries in the explanatory power of public policy theory, because under the requirements of the spirit of the rule of law, the above actions of justice should also be strictly limited. On the one hand, justice should maintain the basic background of neutrality and passivity, clarify its own role orientation, and jointly complete the policy goal of encouraging innovation with other social mechanisms;on the other hand, the judiciary should strictly abide by the boundary of its own power, strictly regulate the judicial discretion and initiative in the process of achieving policy objectives, and exercise its power modestly and carefully.