专利侵权警告函:正当维权与滥用权利的合理界分

发送侵权警告函是专利权人维权的常用方式，也可能成为一些专利权人谋取非法利益的手段。最高人民法院审理的"理邦案"和"双环案"等案件反映，我国关于专利侵权警告函的规范供给不足，司法机关的裁判不一致。这不利于合理界分正当维权与滥用权利。根据权利类型理论，结合美国规制"专利蟑螂"滥用侵权警告函的立法与适用诺尔-本灵顿原则的司法实践，侵权警告函在性质上是专利权人的第二权利即救济权或者请愿权的内涵，不是专有权行使行为，更不是要约。它具有节省维权成本、提高纠纷解决效率和减轻司法负担的作用。发送侵权警告函应恪守权利的边界，不得滥用权利或者进行不正当竞争。我国宜选择在权利不得滥用的路径下，在专利法中具体设定侵权警告函的主体、对象、内容、证据及形式要求，作为指引发函行为及判定其正当性的依据。警告函的发送主体限于专利权人、独占许可人、排他许可人（专利权人不行使权利时）、专利权人的合法继承人。警告的对象限于非法实施专利的人，包括为生产经营目的使用专利的制造者、使用者、许诺销售者、销售者或者进口者。警告函的内容应包括专利权人名称、专利权人地址、警告事项、专利名称、专利号、专利权的有效性，以及被控侵权产品、服务或者技术侵犯涉案专利具体权利要求的具体事实。警告事项包括停止侵权、支付许可费，或者赔偿损失。警告函的证据应包括权属证据、侵权证据和损失证据（如果要求赔偿）。警告函的形式应为书面形式，包括信函、传真和电子邮件，但不包括新闻媒体。专利法还应当从客观与主观两个方面规定滥发侵权警告函的判定标准，即以侵权警告函在客观上是虚假的为第一要件，以主观上出于故意或者重大过失为第二要件。所谓客观虚假包括：（1）所主张的专利无效；（2）被警告人没有侵犯所主张专利的任何权利要求；（3）发函人不是专利权利人或者其他有独立救济权的主体。主观故意或者重大过失的行为表现为：（1）在主张侵权前没有检查收函人的产品；（2）在主张侵权前没有寻求专家建议或意见；（3）没有对涉嫌侵权产品的生产者主张侵权；（4）在主张侵权时有合理理由知道其专利是无效的；（5）谎称自己享有专利权；（6）其他故意或者极端疏忽、轻信的行为。除非具备以上二要件，发函人不承担侵权责任。

Demand letter of patent infringement:The reasonable differentiation between enforcing rights and abusing rights

Sending demand letter of patent infringement is a common way for patentees to enforce their rights,and it may also become a means for some patentees to seek illegal benefits.The "Libang case" and "Shuanghuan case" trialed by the Supreme People''s Court reflect that China''s standard supply of patent demand letters is insufficient,and the judgments of judicial organs are inconsistent.This is not conducive to the reasonable distinction between enforcing rights and abusing rights.According to the theory of right types,combined with the US legislation governing "patent trolls" abuse demand letter and the judicial practice of applying the Noerr-Pennington Doctrine,the demand letter is in nature the second right of the patentee,namely the right of remedy or the right of petition.It is not an act of exclusive right to exercise,let alone an offer.It has the effect of saving the cost of enforcing rights,improving the efficiency of dispute resolution and reducing the judicial burden.Sending demand letter should abide by the boundaries of rights,and must not abuse rights or engage in unfair competition.China should specify the subject,object,content,evidence and form requirements of the demand letter in the patent law under the path that rights cannot be abused,as the basis for sending demand letter and judging its legitimacy.The subject of sending demand letter is limited to the patentee,the exclusive licensor the sole licensor (when the patentee does not exercise the rights),and the legal heirs of the patentee.The target of the letter is limited to those who illegally exploit the patent,including manufacturer,user,who offering for sale,seller or importer.The content of the letter should include the name of the patentee,the address of the patentee,the warning items,the name of the patent,the patent number,the validity of the patent,and the specific facts that the alleged infringing product,service,or technology infringes the specific claims of the patent.Warnings include stopping infringement,paying license fees,or compensating for losses.The evidence in the letter should include evidence of ownership,evidence of infringement,and evidence of loss (if compensation is required).The letter should be in written form,including letters,faxes,and e-mails,but not news media.The patent law should also stipulate the criteria for judging the abuse of demand letter from both objective and subjective aspects,that is,the demand letter is objectively false as the first element,and subjective intentional or gross negligence is the second element.The so-called objective falsehood includes:(1) the claimed patent is invalid;(2) the person being warned does not infringe any claims of the claimed patent;(3) the sender is not the patentee or subjects with independent remedies.The behavior of subjective intention or gross negligence is manifested as:(1) failure to inspect the recipient''s products before claiming infringement;(2) failure to seek expert advice or opinions before claiming infringement;(3) failure to claim infringement to the producer before claiming infringement;(4) knowing that the patent is invalid before claiming infringement;(5) falsely claiming that one has patent rights;(6) other deliberate,extremely negligent or credulous acts.Unless the above two requirements are met,the sender shall not be liable for tort.