知识产权惩罚性赔偿制度司法适用问题探究——以上海市浦东新区人民法院知识产权惩罚性赔偿案件为样本

Research on the Judicial Application of Intellectual Property P unitive Damages System——Taking Intellectual Property Punitive Damages Cases of Shanghai Pudong New Area People's Court as a Sample

针对知识产权惩罚性赔偿实践中出现的新情况、新特点和突出问题,应当明确侵权“故意”的概念范围,丰富“情节严重”类型化表现形式的内涵。基数的计算应秉持精细化计算与裁量性计算相结合的思维。应明确裁量性计算与法定赔偿间的区别,结合优势盖然性证明规则及举证妨碍规则对其适用。在倍数确定方面,采公式化的方式恐难以做到周延,亦可能限缩法官自由裁量空间。在适用法定赔偿时需排除惩罚性因素,可依据诉讼标的理论适用惩罚性赔偿与法定赔偿并行的“双轨制”赔偿。可根据案件中的举证及诉讼标的情况选择适用全案裁量性计算或“双轨制”赔偿。同时,需进一步明确对行政罚款或刑事罚金“执行完毕”的把握。在惩罚性赔偿的约定适用中,需把握约定作为债的本质属性,允许法院在约定明显不合理时予以调整。

In view of new situations.characteristics and prominent problems in the practice of punitive damages for intellectual property rights,the scope of the concept of"intentional"infringement should be clarified,and new situations arised in practice should be absorbed to enrich the connotation of various types of“serious circumstances”.The calculation of the base number should adhere to the thinking of combining refined calculation and discretionary calculation.In the determination of discretionary damages,the difference between it and statutory damages should be clarified,and it could be applied in combination with the proof rule of preponderance probability and the rule of proof obstruction.In terms of multiple determination,the formulaic method may not be comprehensive,and may also limit the discretionary space of judges for individual cases.Punitive factors need to be excluded when applying statutory damages,at the same time,the“dual-track approach”of punitive damages and statutory damages could be applied according to the theory of the subject matter of litigation.In practice,the discretionary damages or“dual-track approach”damages could be chosen to applied according to the evidence in the case and the subject matter of litigation.At the same time,it is necessary to further clarify the connotation of"completion of execution"of administrative fines or criminal fines.In the case of punitive damages undercontract,it is necessary to grasp the essential nature of the agreement as a debt,and allow the court to make adjustments when the agreement is obviously unreasonable.