知識產權禁令中雙方當事人權益保護

Protecting the Rights and Interests of Both Parities in the Injunction of Intellectual Property Protection

知識產權禁令本是一項獨立的、實體的訴訟請求，可視為我國的行為給付之訴。中間禁令區別于永久禁令的要義是救濟的緊急性與效力的臨時性，以及與之匹配的程序的簡單性和證明標準的低階性，但仍是針對實體爭議展開的平等對抗。因此，針對是否發佈禁令所進行的司法審查與裁判而對損害的“不可彌補性”和勝訴可能性的評估都是針對雙方當事人的實體權益。作為停止／禁止侵權之訴的基本前提，申請禁令的一方須證明自己是知識產權的擁有者，換言之，無論訴求永久禁令或中間禁令甚或單方禁令均以權利成立為要件，但在滿足緊急甚或加急的程序要件時，其證明標準低於終局禁令。同樣，程序的規範性與救濟的緊急性相匹配，但無論禁令程序被簡化到何種程度，通知和聽證作為底線的正當程序要件都不可或缺，儘管在適用單方禁令的情形下可以事後儘早舉行，而這也決定了單方禁令的效力期間很短。我國法律將終局禁令與停止侵權的民事責任（實體性救濟）對接，而將中間禁令和單方禁令與行為保全（程序性救濟）對接，導致了源于英美衡平法的禁令救濟共享的法律特徵被割裂；我國民訴通說將實體性臨時救濟定義為程序性救濟，進一步掏空了實體規範對於行為保全裁定權的支撐與限定；保全的制度功能原是為了防止將來判決不能執行或難以執行而釆取的保全措施，因此其審查重點與防範風險的邏輯都是指向執行、裁判客體和證明對象都指向保障執行的財產和／或妨礙執行的行為，這種制度與理論慣性即使在我國行為保全制度照抄美國中間禁令四要件檢驗法之後實踐效果也仍在原有的制度邏輯上運行，甚而致使行為保全頻繁淪為知識產權領域不正當競爭武器。

Injunction of intellectual property protection is an independent, substantive claim, which can be treated as a claim of prestation. Provisional injunction is different from permanent injunction in the sense of urgency of relief and temporality of effect, as well as the matching procedure simplicity and low standard of proof, but it is still an equal confrontation against substantive disputes. Therefore, in the judicial review and judgment of whether to issue an injunction, the assessment of the“irremediability”of the damage and the possibility of success of the lawsuit is aimed at the substantive rights and interests of both parties. As the basic premise of stopping/ injuncting infringement action, the party applying for injunction must prove that it is the owner of intellectual property. In other words, whether seeking permanent injunction, intermediate injunction or even unilateral injunction, the establishment of the right is the prerequisite, but when meeting the urgent or even urgent procedural requirements, the standard of proof is lower than that of final injunction. Similarly, the normative nature of the procedure is matched by the urgency of the relief, but no matter how simplified the injunction process is, the due process requirements of notice and hearing as the bottom line are indispensable, although in the case of unilateral injunctions it can be held as early as possible afterwards, which also determines the short duration of the unilateral injunctions. Chinese law connects final injunction with civil liability for stopping infringement ( substantive relief ), and interlocutory injunction and unilateral injunction with act preservation (procedural relief), which results in the separation of the legal features of sharing injunctive relief derived from Anglo-American equity law. Chinese jurists define provisional substantive relief as procedural relief, further empties the support and limitation of substantive norms on the adjudication power of injunction. Even after China’s act preservation system copied America’s four tests review of interlocution injunction, the practical effect still runs on the original Chinese system logic, and even makes act preservation frequently become a weapon of unfair competition in the field of intellectual property.