法学院知识库

随着创新驱动发展战略的深入推进，我国已经成为专利申请量和授权量世界第一的专利大国。与此同时，我国专利侵权诉讼的案件数量也呈现出逐年递增的趋势。由于专利权客体的非物质性和侵权手段的专业性、隐蔽性等特点使得专利侵权诉讼中权利人的举证难度较大，加之现行证据收集制度的规定过于笼统，对当事人的证据收集权利没有规定具体的实施方式和保护措施，使得原告方当事人收集证据的过程困难重重。司法实践中，因为证据提交不足而引发的判赔数额低的现象凸显，“赢了官司，丢了市场”的情况也时有发生，严重挫伤了企业技术革新和运用法律手段保护自身合法权益的积极性。当前专利侵权诉讼案件日益多发的趋势和诉讼中“举证难、赔偿低”的现象以及现实中司法保护的效果与创新主体的期待存在较大差距的问题都对我国专利侵权诉讼中证据制度的适用提出了新的要求。

专利的司法保护在激励创新、促进科技成果转化和产业转型升级方面有着至关重要的作用，而专利侵权诉讼中出现的举证难等问题却使得司法保护的效果大打折扣。基于此背景，笔者对域外部分国家的证据开示制度进行了考察，其作为审前程序中的一项重要制度，具有便利当事人收集证据、防止“证据突袭”和促进案件和解的功能。相较于我国的证据交换制度，证据开示制度的系统性更加完备，更注重当事人之间的证据交换。在专利侵权诉讼中适用证据开示制度可以强化当事人的证据收集能力，对解决当前专利侵权诉讼中的举证难问题具有重要的现实意义。

本文分析了证据开示制度的相关理论，并结合专利侵权诉讼的现状及其存在的问题，在考察域外制度经验的基础上，提出了我国专利侵权诉讼中适用证据开示制度的具体规则和完善建议。首先，文章分析了证据开示制度的基础理论，并就我国证据交换制度的规定进行了阐述；其次，分析和论述了我国专利侵权诉讼中的一系列现实实务困境，为证据开示制度的适用提供了必要性基础；再次，得出我国专利侵权诉讼中急需适用证据开示制度的结论后，结合对域外可借鉴经验的考察，论述了相关国家的制度规定；最后，在前文分析、论述的基础上，借鉴了域外部分国家的成熟理论，对证据开示制度在我国专利侵权诉讼中的适用提出了一系列具体建议。

With the further development of innovation-driven development strategy, China has become the largest patent application country in the world. At the same time, the number of cases of patent infringement litigation is increasing year by year. Because of the non-material nature of the object of patent and the specialties and concealment of the means of infringement, the burden of proof of the right holder in the patent infringement lawsuit is more difficult. In addition, the provisions of the current evidence collection system are too general. It is difficult for the parties to collect evidence. In judicial practice, the low amount of claims caused by the lack of evidence is highlighted. The situation of "winning the lawsuit and losing the market" has occurred, which seriously bruised the enthusiasm of the enterprise's technological innovation and the use of legal means to protect its legitimate rights and interests. At present, the increasing trend of patent infringement cases and the phenomenon of "difficult to raise proof, low compensation" in litigation, and the big gap between the effect of judicial protection and the expectation of the innovation subject have put forward new requirements for the application of evidence system in patent infringement litigation in China.

The judicial protection of patent plays a vital role in stimulating innovation, promoting the transformation of scientific and technological achievements and upgrading the industrial transformation. However, the difficulty of proof in patent infringement litigation makes the effect of judicial protection discounted. Based on this background, the author inspects the discovery system in some foreign countries. As an important system in the pre trial procedure, it has the function of facilitating the parties' collecting evidence, preventing the "evidence raid" and promoting the case reconciliation. Compared with the evidence exchange system in our country, the system of discovery system is more systematic. We should pay more attention to evidence exchange between parties. The application of discovery system in patent infringement litigation can strengthen the party's ability to collect evidence, and it is of great practical significance to solve the problem of proof in the current patent infringement lawsuit.

This paper analyzes the relevant theories of the discovery system, and combines the status and existing problems of the patent infringement litigation, and on the basis of the experience of the extraterritorial system, puts forward the specific rules and perfect suggestions for the application of the discovery system in the patent infringement litigation of China. Firstly, the article analyzes the basic theory of the discovery system and expounds the provisions of the evidence exchange system in China. Secondly, it analyzes and discusses a series of practical difficulties in the patent infringement litigation in China, which provides the necessary basis for the application of the discovery system; Thirdly, after the conclusion of the urgent application of the discovery system, relevent regulations on several foreign countris are elaborated in the light of the judicial experience of these countries. Finally, on the basis of the analysis and discussion of the previous article, the mature theories of some foreign countries are used for reference, and a series of specific proposals regarding the application of the discovery system in the patent infringement litigation of our country is put forward.