論國際司法合作中的智慧財產權地域性

The Territoriality of Intellectual Property in International Judicial Cooperation

在《海牙判決公約》的談判中，我國國內關於智慧財產權問題存在合作與不合作兩種立場，前者要求加強國際司法合作，後者則以智慧財產權地域性為理由主張不合作。二者的分歧源於國際私法追求國際合作的理念和智慧財產權法本質上是國內法的觀點，但是晚近以來，智慧財產權的地域性在立法與實踐中不斷被突破。以管轄權和法律適用為核心的智慧財產權地域性保護可分為二元的基本方案:絕對地域性方案和相對地域性方案。未來，我國進行智慧財產權領域的國際司法合作，應該區分合作的國家、智慧財產權類型、智慧財產權事項以及合作的內容，進行類型化選擇。智慧財產權地域性保護方法可以在二元方案基礎上進行多元組合，但總體上應堅持以相對地域性方案為原則，絕對地域性方案為例外。

In the negotiation of the HCCH 2019 Judgments Convention, two opposing positions on intellectual property (hereinafter referred to as “IP”) exist in China: cooperation and non-cooperation. The former calls for strengthening international judicial cooperation, while the latter sticks to noncooperation on the grounds of the IP territoriality. The difference between the two positions originates from the idea that private international law pursues international cooperation and that the IP law is essentially domestic law. Recently, the IP territoriality has been broken through in legislation and practice. Considering that jurisdiction and choice of laws are the two fundamental elements in evaluating the IP territoriality, their protection approaches can thereby be divided into absolute territorial scheme and relative territorial scheme. In the future, when China engages in international judicial cooperation, typed schemes should be preferred in distinguishing the countries that cooperate with, types of IP rights, IP matters and cooperation matters. As for the protection methods of the IP territoriality, multiple combinations can be used on the basis of the above binary schemes, and generally adhere to the principle of relative territorial scheme, with the exception of absolute territorial scheme.