專利間接侵權制度專門化研究

專利間接侵權業已成為專利立法中最具爭議的問題之一。我國雖然已在立法上取得突破，但採用共同侵權規則應對間接侵權問題，不僅難以逾越構成要件層面的差異，也無法滿足間接侵權獨立化的現實需求。《專利解釋（二）》的適用積累了一定的專利間接侵權司法經驗，但是在專用物品、間接行為和直接侵權三個要件上仍有諸多亟待糾正之處。網路服務提供者的專利間接侵權責任不屬於替代責任，且在主觀要件上異於傳統專利間接侵權。專利侵權的特殊性使得專利避風港規則必須得到專門設計，從必要措施的重構出發嘗試規則的全面優化。在上述三大障礙得到充分解決的基礎上，我國應當進而構建專利間接侵權的專門化制度。

The indirect infringement of patents has become one of the most controversial issues in patent legislation. Despite certain legislative progress, China’s approach of applying joint tort when dealing with indirect infringement cases is not only hindered by various differences in terms of constituting elements, but also troubled by the inability of achieving an independence of indirect infringement regime. The application of the Patent Interpretation(II)has accumulated some judicial experience of patent indirect infringement, but there are still many problems to be corrected in the constituting elements of specific goods, indirect behaviors and direct infringements. The indirect infringement of patents liability of internet service providers differentiates from a conventional vicarious liability, whereas its constitution of mentality diverges from regular patent indirect infringement. The particularity of patent infringement requires the patent safe harbor to be specifically designed, and then be improved through the reconstruction of“necessary measures”.China’s specialized indirect infringement of patents regime shall then be established upon the clearance of the abovementioned major obstacles.