摘 要

专利权滥用的情况在我国时有发生，专利权人向相对人发送侵权警告，谴责行为侵犯了自己的专利权并以起诉相威胁，但其在相当长的时间内并不采取诉讼或仲裁等法定纠纷解决方式，这不仅影响了相对人的正常生产经营活动，也严重地破坏了商业竞争的良好秩序。侵权警告本身是一把双刃剑，它既可以成为专利权人宣示权利，遏制专利侵权行为的武器，也可能成为专利权人滥用权利，损害竞争对手商业信誉，进行不正当竞争的手段。

在我国的确认不侵害知识产权诉讼领域中，确认不侵害专利权诉讼是案件数量最多、出现最早的一类诉讼，一度起到了督促权利人依法、合理行使权利的良好作用，但此类诉讼发展方兴未艾，仍然存在许多理论和实务层面的问题亟待加以明确，最为突出的便是举证责任分配的问题。并且此类诉讼在我国现有立法中并无系统化的制度体系，其举证责任分配的规定仅仅停留在零散的批复和司法解释中。

本文通过对于中国裁判文书网检索所得的确认不侵害专利权诉讼案件裁判文书进行实证分析，结合现有理论、立法以及司法实务进行探讨，以期完善我国确认不侵害专利权诉讼制度。本文主要从以下四个部分进行探讨:

第一章“绪论”，介绍了确认不侵害专利权诉讼的研究背景和研究意义，从研究数量趋势和内容两个层面进行了研究现状分析，交代了本文使用的研究方法。

第二章“确认不侵害专利权诉讼相关问题的理论分析”，探讨了确认不侵害专利权诉讼的定义和性质、举证责任分配、事案解明义务的相关理论，考察了我国当前立法、最高人民法院的批复以及司法解释中对于举证责任和确认不侵害专利权诉讼的相关规定。

第三章“基于裁判文书的实证分析”，通过分析中国裁判文书网上检索到的确认不侵害专利权诉讼案件裁判文书，从“被告发出侵权警告却迟延诉讼之事实”、“专利侵权事实是否存在”、“专利权的归属及内容”等三个主要待证事实的角度分析了此类诉讼中的举证责任分配实务操作和理论争议，提出了自己的看法。

第四章“我国确认不侵害专利权诉讼制度的完善与展望”，结合第一、二、三章的研究内容，尝试对此类诉讼的制度体系构建提出改善建议。

关键词：专利权；确认不侵权诉讼；举证责任分配；当事人事案解明义务

Abstract

The abuse of patent rights has occurred in China at present, and the patentee sends infringement warnings to the relatives. The condemnation act infringes on its own patent rights and threatens to be prosecuted, but it does not take litigation or arbitration for a long time. The statutory dispute resolution method not only affects the normal production and operation activities of the relatives, but also seriously undermines the good order of commercial competition. The infringement warning itself is a double-edged sword. It can become a weapon for the patentee to declare rights and curb patent infringement, or it may become a means for the patentee to abuse his rights, damage the competitor's business reputation, and conduct unfair competition.

In the field of China's confirmation of non-infringement of intellectual property litigation, the recognition of non-infringement of patent litigation is the largest number of cases, the earliest type of litigation, and once played a good role in supervising the right holders to exercise their rights according to law, but such litigation development As the ascendant is still there, there are still many theoretical and practical issues that need to be clarified. The most prominent issue is the issue of the distribution of burden of proof. Moreover, such litigation has no systematic system in China's existing legislation, and its provisions on the distribution of burden of proof only remain in scattered approval and judicial interpretation.

This paper conducts empirical analysis on the judgments of the Chinese refereeing documents, which does not infringe the patent litigation cases, and discusses the existing theories, legislation and judicial practice, in order to improve China's confirmation of non-infringement of patent litigation system. This article mainly discusses the following four parts:

The first chapter "Introduction" introduces the research background and research significance of confirming non-infringement of patent litigation. The research status is analyzed from the research of quantitative trend and content, and the research method used in this paper is explained.

The second chapter "confirmation of the theoretical analysis of issues related to non-infringement of patent litigation" discusses the definition and nature of non-infringement of patent litigation, the distribution of burden of proof, the obligation to resolve the case, and examines the current legislation and the Supreme People's Court of China. The approval and the relevant provisions in the judicial interpretation for the burden of proof and the confirmation of non-infringement of patent litigation.

The third chapter is "based on the empirical analysis of the judgment documents". By analyzing the online judgments of the Chinese judgment documents, the documents that confirm the non-infringement of patent litigation cases, from the fact that the defendant issued the infringement warning but delayed the lawsuit, and the existence of the patent infringement fact "The affiliation and content of patent rights" and other three main facts to be analyzed analyze the practical operation and theoretical controversy of the burden of proof in such litigation, and put forward their own views.

The fourth chapter "China confirms the perfection and prospect of not infringing the patent litigation system", combined with the research contents of the first, second and third chapters, tries to propose improvements to the institutional system construction of such litigation.

Keywords: Patent rights; Suit of affirmation of non-infringement;Burden of proof;Obligation to resolve the case

目 录

第1章 绪论 1

1.1 问题的提出 1

1.1.1 确认不侵害专利权诉讼的由来 1

1.1.2 开展实证研究的意义 2

1.2 以举证责任为视角的考量因素 2

1.3 本文研究方法 2

1.3.1 实证研究法 3

1.3.2 文献研究法 3

1.3.3 案例研究法 3

第2章 确认不侵害专利权诉讼相关问题的理论分析 4

2.1 确认不侵害专利权诉讼的定义和性质 4

2.1.1 确认不侵害专利权诉讼的定义 4

2.1.2 确认不侵害专利权诉讼的性质 4

2.2 待证事实的确定 4

2.3 确认不侵害专利权诉讼的举证责任分配 6

2.3.1 举证责任的一般理论 6

2.3.2 确认不侵害专利权诉讼中的举证责任 7

2.4 当事人事案解明义务 7

2.4.1 当事人事案解明义务之机能 7

2.4.2 当事人事案解明义务的内容 8

2.4.3 我国构建事案解明义务之必要性探讨 8

第3章 国内立法现状的考察 10

3.1 举证责任的相关立法 10

3.1.1 《民事诉讼法》第64条 10

3.1.2 《关于民事诉讼法证据的若干规定》第2条、第7条 10

3.1.3 《民事诉讼法解释》第90条、第91条 10

3.1.4 《关于民事诉讼证据的若干规定》第4条 11

3.2 确认不侵害专利权诉讼的相关立法 11

3.2.1 《中华人民共和国专利法》第69条 11

3.2.2 最高人民法院法释[2009]21号司法解释 11

3.2.3 最高人民法院做出的法[2011]42号通知 12

3.2.4 最高人民法院[2001]民三他字第4号批复 12

3.2.5 最高人民法院[2004]民三他字第4号通知 12

第4章 基于裁判文书的实证分析 13

4.1 裁判文书样本说明 13

4.2 司法实务中的举证责任分配情况 15