专利引诱侵权规则解构及本土塑造——兼评美国最高法院系列裁判

Deconstructing and Localizing the Rule of Patent Inducement Infringement--Reviewing the U.S.Supreme Court Decisions

1952年《美国专利法》从成文法角度确认了专利引诱侵权制度。但由于条文较模糊,相应规则解释与适用的重任交给了司法实践。美国最高法院先后在Grokster案、SEB案、Akamai案、Commil案中就引诱侵权问题的表态历经反复,主要争议在“意图”的认定。对我国而言,建构专利引诱侵权规则可以通过司法解释补充规定将其法定化;同时对于专利引诱侵权判定标准与证明,建议从意图、引诱行为、关联关系等三个方面进行具体化,即引起行为的意图、引诱侵犯专利权的意图系明确意图的两个层面;引诱行为包括为第三方侵权提供指导的行为、设计侵权装置或系统的行为、诱导侵犯专利权的其他行为等三类;引诱人与直接行为人的关联关系因素与意图因素是动态平衡的,关联越密,意图的要求越低。在引诱侵权认定中对行为、意图、相互关系综合考察有助于对专利法体系下欲阻止的行为进行明确,这种明确会有利于专利权人和市场参与者更好地把握引诱侵权的责任风险,更好地促进技术创新与社会进步。

The 1952 U.S.Patent Act has recognized inducement of patent infringement.However,since the provision is relatively vague,the court may confront the tough work of interpretation and application.The U.S.Supreme Court handed down its decision on induced infringement in Grokster,SEB,Akamai and Commil cases with confusion and contradiction concerning the intent mainly.For China,it is suggested to define the rule through supplementary provisions of judicial interpretation,and analyze the three aspects,intent,inducing act and the relationship.That is,the intent includes the intent to induce acts and intent to induce infringement.There are three kinds of acts such as providing instructions,designing an infringing apparatus or system and other acts.The relationship between an accused infringer and a direct infringer are dynamically balanced,and the more closely related,the lower the requirement of intent.Comprehensive examination of acts,intent,and mutual relationships will prevent the exact infringing act under the patent law,clarifying the induced infringement liability risk,and promoting technological innovation and social progress.