【摘要】：我國并未對專利侵權(quán)警告函制度進行具體規(guī)定,最高人民法院在2009年第一次確立了法院受理確認不侵犯專利權(quán)訴訟的受理條件,這也是我國法律首次提出專利侵權(quán)警告函的概念。專利侵權(quán)警告函是一種常見的專利權(quán)人維護自己合法專利權(quán)的方式,這一救濟方式不以法院作出侵權(quán)判決為前提,專利權(quán)人可以通過侵權(quán)警告函達到制止侵權(quán)的目的。專利侵權(quán)警告函是一種便利、迅捷的解決專利侵權(quán)糾紛的途徑,通過專利侵權(quán)警告函雙方當(dāng)事人可以選擇協(xié)商解決而不需要經(jīng)過一個復(fù)雜的訴訟過程,相比較專利侵權(quán)訴訟漫長復(fù)雜的調(diào)查取證過程,專利侵權(quán)警告函的成本低,為專利權(quán)人節(jié)省了一大筆訴訟費用,還能起到中斷訴訟時效的法律效果,并且對于銷售商主觀過錯具有證明作用。在現(xiàn)實生活中警告函常常被惡意濫用,造成受函人巨大的經(jīng)濟損失。關(guān)于濫用專利侵權(quán)警告函這種行為的法律性質(zhì)學(xué)界存在兩種學(xué)說,一是不正當(dāng)競爭,二是權(quán)利濫用說。不正當(dāng)競爭說表現(xiàn)為行為人為了阻礙競爭對手發(fā)展、損害其商業(yè)信譽故意發(fā)送含有捏造、散布虛偽事實的警告函;權(quán)利濫用說表現(xiàn)為專利權(quán)人擁有合法專利權(quán),但是故意發(fā)送不正當(dāng)?shù)膶＠謾?quán)警告函來損害受函人的名譽,不正當(dāng)?shù)膶＠謾?quán)警告函主要內(nèi)容不當(dāng)、發(fā)送方式不當(dāng)和發(fā)送對象不當(dāng)三種情形。專利侵權(quán)警告函濫用的行為嚴(yán)重損害了受函人的商業(yè)信譽,給受函人造成了巨大的損失,這種不正當(dāng)行為應(yīng)當(dāng)受到法律的制裁,但是我國法律本身對專利侵權(quán)警告函沒有作出規(guī)定,那么對于濫用警告函行為的法律規(guī)制更是缺失的,司法實踐中,我們可以從確認不侵犯專利權(quán)之訴、不正當(dāng)競爭之訴和侵犯法人名譽權(quán)之訴三個方面對濫用專利侵權(quán)警告函的行為進行救濟。行為人發(fā)送警告函后經(jīng)被控侵權(quán)人書面催告,既不行使訴權(quán)也不撤回警告函的情況下被控侵權(quán)人有權(quán)向法院提起確認不侵犯專利權(quán)之訴,請求法院判決并不存在專利侵權(quán)事實。但是確認不侵犯專利權(quán)訴訟也具有一定的局限性,只能在一定程度上制止警告函的濫用,而并不能有效地彌補受函人所遭受的損失。反不正當(dāng)競爭之訴的救濟方式主要是在發(fā)函人通過捏造虛偽事實損害受函人商業(yè)信譽時的救濟方式,不正當(dāng)競爭之訴的救濟方式要對賠償數(shù)額以及舉證責(zé)任這兩方面進行完善。行為人發(fā)送的專利侵權(quán)警告函損害了受函人的法人名譽權(quán),被控侵權(quán)的法人可以依法提起侵犯法人名譽權(quán)以期對自己所受損失進行救濟。發(fā)函人濫用專利侵權(quán)警告函的行為損害法人名譽權(quán)應(yīng)當(dāng)承擔(dān)侵權(quán)責(zé)任,法律責(zé)任主要有停止侵權(quán)、消除影響、恢復(fù)名譽、賠禮道歉和賠償損失。
[Abstract]:There are no specific provisions on the patent infringement warning letter system in our country. In 2009, the Supreme people's Court established for the first time the acceptance conditions for the court to accept and confirm the non-infringement of patent rights litigation. This is also the first time that the concept of patent infringement warning letter has been put forward by the law of our country. Patent infringement warning letter is a common way for patentees to safeguard their legitimate patent rights, which is not based on the premise that the court makes an infringement judgment, and the patentee can achieve the purpose of stopping infringement through infringement warning letters. Patent infringement warning letter is a convenient and rapid way to solve patent infringement disputes. Through patent infringement warning letter, the parties can choose to negotiate and resolve it without going through a complex litigation process. Compared with the long and complex process of investigation and evidence collection in patent infringement litigation, the cost of patent infringement warning letter is low, which saves a large amount of litigation cost for patentee, and can also have the legal effect of interrupting the limitation of action. And for the seller subjective fault has the proof function. In real life, warning letters are often maliciously abused, resulting in huge economic losses. There are two theories about the legal nature of abuse of patent infringement warning letter, one is unfair competition, the other is the theory of abuse of rights. The theory of unfair competition is manifested in that the actor intentionally sends a warning letter containing fabrications and false facts in order to hinder the development of his competitors and damage his commercial reputation. The abuse of rights is manifested in that the patentee has a legitimate patent right, but intentionally sends an improper warning letter of patent infringement to damage the reputation of the addressee, and the main content of the improper warning letter of patent infringement is improper. There are three situations: improper sending mode and improper sending object. The abuse of patent infringement warning letter has seriously damaged the commercial reputation of the addressee and caused great losses to the addressee. Such improper acts should be punished by law. However, the law of our country itself does not stipulate the warning letter of patent infringement, so the legal regulation of abuse of warning letter is even less. In judicial practice, we can confirm the claim of non-infringement of patent right. The lawsuit of unfair competition and the lawsuit of infringing the reputation right of legal person are used to remedy the abuse of patent infringement warning letter. After sending the warning letter, the alleged infringer has the right to file a lawsuit with the court confirming the non-infringement of the patent right without exercising the right of action or withdrawing the warning letter, and requests the court to decide that there is no fact of patent infringement. However, the confirmation of non-infringement of patent litigation also has some limitations, can only stop the abuse of warning letters to a certain extent, and can not effectively make up for the losses suffered by the addressee. The relief method of anti-unfair competition lawsuit is mainly in the way of relief when the sender damages the commercial reputation of the addressee by fabricating false facts. The relief method of unfair competition lawsuit should perfect the amount of compensation and the burden of proof. The warning letter of patent infringement sent by the perpetrator damages the legal person's reputation right of the addressee, and the legal person accused of infringing the legal person may bring forward the infringement of the legal person's reputation right in accordance with the law in order to remedy the loss he has suffered. The sender should bear tort liability for abusing the warning letter of patent infringement to damage the reputation right of legal person. The main legal liability is to stop the infringement, eliminate the influence, restore the reputation, apologize and compensate for the loss.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：遼寧大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2017
【分類號】：D923.42

【參考文獻】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前8條

1 宋紅波;;知識產(chǎn)權(quán)確認不侵權(quán)之訴受理制度研究——從一條司法解釋說開去[J];蘇州科技學(xué)院學(xué)報(社會科學(xué)版);2011年03期

2 張健;;專利救濟權(quán)濫用的基本形態(tài)研究[J];法制與經(jīng)濟(下旬);2011年02期

3 高毅龍;;侵權(quán)警告的利害關(guān)系人提起確認不侵權(quán)訴訟的條件[J];人民司法;2009年16期

4 祝紅霞;;專利權(quán)濫用的界定與分類研究[J];電子知識產(chǎn)權(quán);2006年06期

5 鄧宏光;;論知識產(chǎn)權(quán)侵權(quán)警告函[J];企業(yè)經(jīng)濟;2006年06期

6 程永順;;關(guān)于請求確認不侵犯專利權(quán)之研究[J];中國發(fā)明與專利;2006年04期

7 鄧宏光;唐文;;論知識產(chǎn)權(quán)不侵權(quán)確認之訴[J];法律適用;2006年Z1期

8 梁志文;論專利權(quán)人之侵權(quán)警告函[J];知識產(chǎn)權(quán);2004年03期

，

本文編號：2493364