《TRIPS協定》下的禁訴令措施——歐盟訴中國知識產權執法措施案探討

Anti-Suit Injunction under the TRIPS Agreement：Discussion on the Dispute of EU-China’s Intellectual Property Enforcement Measures

中國在標準必要專利案件中嘗試使用禁訴令措施，這引起美國和歐盟等的密切關注。禁訴令在國內作為行為保全措施而得到適用，與《TRIPS協定》規定的臨時措施相契合。歐盟通過WTO爭端解決機制就知識產權執法措施問題向中國提請磋商，其核心爭點為禁訴令是否作為常態化的法律措施在中國得到普遍適用。分析禁訴令在《TRIPS協定》下的合規性，需要回到《維也納條約法公約》規定的條約法解釋通則，準確解釋《TRIPS協定》條款文本的含義。依該協定文本，中國在個案中適用禁訴令措施沒有影響專利權的行使，也未導致執法程序濫用，無法得出必然違反《TRIPS協定》的結論。如果在磋商過程中相關糾紛沒有順利得到解決，可依據《TRIPS協定》，從措施識別的準確性、臨時措施的正當性等多個方面來維護中方的合法正當權益。

China’s attempt to use anti-suit injunction measures in patent disputes related to standard essential patents has attracted close attention from trading partners such as the United States and the European Union. The anti-suit injunctions are applied in China as an act preservation measure, which is consistent with the interim measures stipulated in the TRIPS Agreement. Through the WTO dispute settlement mechanism, the European Union submitted to WTO Dispute Settlement Body for consultation on China’s intellectual property law enforcement measures. The core issue of the dispute is whether the application of the anti-suit injunction is generally applicable in China as a legal rule. To analyze the compliance of anti-suit injunction measures under the TRIPS Agreement, we need to return to the general principles of treaty interpretation stipulated in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties and accurately explain the meaning of the text of the provisions of the TRIPS Agreement. According to the TRIPS Agreement, the relevant measures in China have no impact on the exercise of patent rights, and will not cause the abuse of enforcement procedure. If the dispute is not successfully resolved in the consultation process, China can safeguard China’s legitimate rights and interests by invoking the TRIPS Agreement, in terms of the accuracy of measure identification and the legitimacy of interim measures.