日本专利权当然无效抗辩原则及其启示

当然无效抗辩是指,在专利权侵权民事诉讼中,被告可以直接主张原告专利权＂当然无效＂因而抗辩自己的行为不侵害其专利权。当然无效抗辩具有独立价值,它赋予了法院在个案中认定专利权是否存在无效理由的权力。当然无效抗辩的提出只要具备专利权无效理由这个要件即可,但在除斥期间经过后,被告无权再提出当然无效抗辩,专利权无效审理非适格请求人在专利侵权诉讼中也可以主张当然无效抗辩。由于宪政体制、司法体制等多方面的原因,在暂时尚未具备采纳美国赋予法院最终确认专利权效力做法条件的情况下,作为一个过渡性的措施,在专利权确权机制方面,我国专利法有必要吸纳当然无效抗辩。     

The Duration of Litigation

This paper analyzes the duration of litigation. The analysis of court congestion by Posner (1972) and Priest (1989) suggests that the effects of delay reduction programs may be only transitory, because initial improvements may be swamped by an offsetting increase in demand for litigation. However, we find some evidence that time to settlement was reduced in a Michigan court by a program that provided for early intervention in each case by a judge who imposed a time schedule on major events of the litigation.
Using two new data sets on personal injury claims, we find that the time to settlement increases with the amount at stake but is sharply reduced when the case is referred to a specialist in personal injury litigation. Estimates of a duration model indicate that the likelihood of settlement is increased by the completion of discovery and especially by the settlement conference. We find that the hazard of settlement increases as the case gets closer to trial. This finding is in accord with the "deadline effect" derived from certain bargaining models.     

审判中心视角下的行政诉讼制度构造

"以审判为中心"的政法政策同样适用于行政诉讼制度改革,它要求法院发挥自身司法能力和司法制度能力,有效地介入涉法行政争议之中,并藉此保护法益。在行政诉讼中,司法权与行政权之间是法律监督上的国家权力结构关系。法院优位于行政机关,法院作为独立裁判者指挥诉讼管理关系和裁判过程。以审判为中心的行政诉讼制度构造,应最大限度地发挥法院司法能力在解决行政争议上的优位角色,应完整地发挥行政诉讼法的制度能力,即发挥立法、司法解释、司法组织及指导性案例的制度功能。行政诉讼司法准入、行政机关负责人出庭应诉、诉讼管辖、庭审制度等,是否体现了"以审判为中心"的制度改革方向,主要看其是否有利于行政争议的实质解决和法益有效保护。"多元化纠纷解决机制"政策和行政行为合法性审查为中心的行政诉讼制度,影响了法院的诉讼角色和功能。回归司法权和诉讼制度本质,宜在行政争议、行政行为和法益之间构造出一致性的诉讼结构关系;宜从组织和体制改革转向程序改革,发挥行政程序和司法程序在塑造司法公正和司法效率上的作用。     

长春亚泰足球俱乐部诉中国足协案再评析——以公共职能为视角

从权力来源角度并不能充分证明中国足协具有行政诉讼被告资格 ,这是形式主义地理解《行政诉讼法》第 2 5条第 4款和《若干问题的解释》第 1条第 1款所致。借鉴英国司法审查的理论 ,从公共职能角度重析中国足协的被告资格 ,结论是人民法院未必不能对中国足协的行为予以司法审查 ,北京市二中院的裁决或许是错误的     

Policy on 180-day marketing exclusivity for drugs marketed under abbreviated new drug applications; clarification--FDA. Clarification

The Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER) of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is publishing this document to clarify the status of its practices governing 180 days of marketing exclusivity for generic drugs and the approval of abbreviated new drug applications (ANDA's) subject to patent litigation. This document is being published due to recent court decisions interpreting provisions of the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984 (Pub. L. 98-417) (the 1984 amendments).     

Ladders and Bushes: The Problem of Caseloads and

The "litigation explosion" has been a frequent topic of concern in both academic circles and the popular press. This idea draws its polemical power from the assumption that litigation rates were lower in the past. But we presently know little about long-term trends in court activity. This article is a critical review of the existing literature on long-term litigation trends and the social development model which scholars have posited to explain changes in litigation patterns. Whether courts are indeed facing imminent crisis because of an explosion is still very much an open question; the extant literature offers no proof of an explosion. The available data do suggest, however, that previous studies may have been overly optimistic in expecting litigation trends to follow any single pattern. The questions about litigation rates will remain open until we are able to gain a fuller understanding of the trends in court activity over time.     

The battle over global drug markets: enforcement of pharmaceutical patents in the United States, Europe and Japan

Legal context: Pharmaceutical patent litigation is on the rise. The focal pointof this increasingly contentious area of litigation is the surgein pharmaceutical patent challenges mounted by generic drugmanufacturers. Pharmaceutical companies need to identify viableenforcement strategies that can survive these challenges andeffectively manage the life cycle of their pharmaceutical productsaround the world. Key points: The degree to which pharmaceutical companies can capitalizeupon the value of their second generation patents to extendthe protection given to existing drug products depends in parton the patent landscape, country by country, and also on theregulatory landscape for generic drug products and their entryinto the marketplace.This paper will examine the patent laws,drug approval regulations, and court decisions on the validityand enforceability of later stage or second generation patentsdirected to combination compounds, selection inventions, andnew indications, in three major jurisdictions: The United States,Europe/UK, and Japan. Practical significance: Successful pharmaceutical companies can maintain a competitiveadvantage in the global pharmaceutical industry by evaluatingand strengthening the way existing drug products are protectedand, in many cases, changing the nature of protection underthe patent laws by improving upon the pharmaceutical productitself.     

The mouse that trolled: the long and tortuous history of a gene mutation patent that became an expensive impediment to Alzheimer's research

This case study presents the tale of the academic discovery of a rare mutation for early-onset Alzheimer''s disease that was patented by a sole inventor and licensed to a non-practicing entity (NPE), the Alzheimer''s Institute of America (AIA). Our aims are (1) to relate this story about patents, research tools, and impediments to medical progress, and (2) to inform ongoing debates about how patents affect research, disposition of university inventions, and the distribution of benefits from publicly funded research. We present an account of the hunt for Alzheimer''s genes, their patenting, assignment, and enforcement based on literature, litigation records and judicial decisions. While AIA''s litigation eventually failed, its suits against 18 defendants, including one university, one foundation, and three non-profit organizations were costly in court years, legal fees, and expert time. Reasons for the failure included non-disclosure of co-inventors, State laws on ownership and assignment of university inventions, and enablement. We discuss the policy implications of the litigation, questioning the value of patents in the research ecosystem and the role of NPEs (“patent trolls”) in biotechnological innovation. The case illustrates tactics that may be deployed against NPEs, including, avenues to invalidate patent claims, Authorization and Consent, legislative reforms specifically targeting NPEs, reforms in the America Invents Act, and judicial action and rules for judicial proceedings. In the highly competitive research environment of Alzheimer''s genetics in the 1990s, patents played a minor, subordinate role in spurring innovation. The case produces a mixed message about the patent system. It illustrates many mistakes in how patents were obtained, administered, and enforced, but, eventually, the legal system rectified these mistakes, albeit slowly, laboriously, and at great cost.     

英租时期威海卫的民事纠纷与民事诉讼

在英租时期,威海卫地区诉讼案件的增多,主要是由于法庭适用中国化的审判规则对中国人有亲和力、诉讼的收费较低、调解的效力不确定,民众乐于诉讼等原因;同时也反映了商品经济的发展和社会文明的进步。     

Partners No More: Relational Transformation and the Turn to Litigation in Two Conservationist Organizations

The rise in litigation against administrative bodies by environmental and other political interest groups worldwide has been explained predominantly through the liberalization of standing doctrines. Under this explanation, termed here "the floodgate model," restrictive standing rules have dammed the flow of suits that groups were otherwise ready and eager to pursue. I examine this hypothesis by analyzing processes of institutional transformation in two conservationist organizations: the Sierra Club in the United States and the Society for the Protection of Nature in Israel (SPNI). Rather than an eagerness to embrace newly available litigation opportunities, as the "floodgate" model would predict, the groups' history reveals a gradual process of transformation marked by internal, largely intergenerational divisions between those who abhorred conflict with state institutions and those who saw such conflict as not only appropriate but necessary to the mission of the group. Furthermore, in contrast to the pluralist interactions that the "floodgate model" imagines, both groups' relations with pertinent agencies in earlier eras better accorded with the partnership-based corporatist paradigm. Sociolegal research has long indicated the importance of relational distance to the transformation of interpersonal disputes. I argue that, at the group level as well, the presence or absence of a (national) partnership-centered relationship determines propensities to bring political issues to court. As such, well beyond change in groups' legal capacity and resources, current increases in levels of political litigation suggest more fundamental transformations in the structure and meaning of relations between citizen groups and the state.     

Patent litigation insurance and R&D incentives

A major policy concern regarding patenting activity is related to the actual enforceability of the patents granted by Patent Offices. The risk of facing elevated legal costs to defend patent rights can affect ex-ante incentives to invest in R&D. This paper analyses whether the availability of insurance policies that cover legal expenditures for patent litigation could increase the appropriability of the innovation. We model a situation in which an incumbent innovator is endowed with a valid patent and an entrant imitator can either directly enter the market or try to apply for a patent, hoping that an error will be made by the Patent Office. The incumbent can accommodate the entrant, file a suit to a civil court or offer a settlement agreement. We model the presence of heterogeneity in the risk that the patents will face an error by both patent examiners at Patent Offices and judges at civil court. We analyse the changes in expected profits for the innovator when given the possibility of buying an insurance policy which will cover legal costs in the event of trial. We compare the cases in which (i) coverage is voluntary and the insurer can discriminate perfectly between risky patents; (ii) coverage is voluntary and the insurer cannot discriminate between patents, and (iii) coverage is compulsory. The model highlights a set of peculiar strategic characteristics of insurance for legal expenditures which contribute to singling out the reasons underlying the underdevelopment of this market. We suggest that the crucial reason for such a failure is not adverse selection; consequently, we challenge the benefits of making coverage compulsory.     

Interest Groups in the Israeli High Court of Justice: Measuring Success in Litigation and in Out-of-Court Settlements

The question of whether and to what extent interest groups are more successful than other parties in litigation is the subject of many debates among social scientists. Previous works in the field concentrated on checking outcomes of cases that were disposed of by courts in officially published final decisions. We sought to analyze not only final court decisions but also the outcomes of out-of-court settlements. Drawing from Marc Galanter's hypothesis that groups, especially those who are "repeat players," are likely to use out-of-court settlements more often and more efficiently than other litigants (Galanter 1974), we measured actual case outcomes of petitions brought before the Israeli High Court of Justice. We found that groups in general, and "repeat player" groups in particular, achieved a success rate significantly higher than other litigants. We also found that the relative advantage of groups in litigation is the result of their ability to reach out-of-court settlements with government agencies.     

Corporations in Court: Big Business Litigation in U. S. Federal Courts, 1971–1991

This article provides an overview of federal litigation involving the largest 2,000 U. S. corporations over the period 1971–91. Reporting from a unique data set of the authors'construction, it finds that althugh the aggregate volume of business litigation grew during the 1970s and early 1980s, it has actually been declining in recent years in all major categories of cases; business-related litigation is heavily concentrated, with an extremely limited number of business "mega-litigants" accounting for most of the activity; this concentration is particularly evident in tort, with the result that the tort trend line outside the concentration is actually flat or declining; a good deal of the growth in litigation outside the tort area can be attributed to business itself; and big business wins overwhelmingly, as plaintiff and defendant, in cases that involve it. The general applicability of these findings is limited by the data's restriction to federal court litigation and the structure of the Integrated Federal Court Data Base from which the authors'data set was constructed. This granted, the report is by far the most comprehensive treatment of U. S. big business litigation to date, and its findings are strikingly at odds with the premises of much current policy discussion.     

论我国法院判定专利权效力的界限——专利无效判断方式的原则与例外

学界对于专利侵权纠纷与确权纠纷解决“双轨制构造”批评颇多,有关问题的解决思路也争议良多、尚难以达成统一意见。专利法需要改革,但改革离不开理论支撑,不可违背基本法理“自说自话”。学者们尚未足够重视专利权有效性推定对于专利无效判断方式所带来的影响。明晰“双轨制构造”背后存在的法理基础,为专利法改革提供基础理论支持,显得尤为重要。在现有的法理基础上进行专利法改革,法院原则上应充分尊重专利局的确权职能,只有在例外的情况下,也即当然无效的情形下才能直接判定专利权效力。     

关于匿名诉讼的立法思考——拷问实名诉讼的缺憾

不论英美法系国家和地区的民事诉讼规则,还是大陆法系国家和地区的民事诉讼法,都规定当事人以实名的方式进行诉讼。不过,崇尚实践理性的英美法系国家的法官,基于案件的实际情况有时许可当事人以匿名的方式进行诉讼。我国现行《民事诉讼法》有关起诉条件中应记明当事人姓名的规定已不能适应实践的需要。民事诉讼法应该规定当事人具有匿名诉讼的权利,法院应该按照一定的程序规则,在当事人匿名和公开其姓名之间权衡利弊以决定是否同意当事人的匿名诉讼申请。     

民事诉讼费用的可诉性与诉的设置

民事诉讼费用作为人民法院运作经费的主要来源 ,直接影响到诉讼中当事人人权保障和法院的权威。诉讼费用构成的不确定性和裁判机制的非科学性 ,决定了当事人对法院单方面裁断的诉讼费用具有诉的利益。而国家对公民诉讼权保障的无条件性 ,要求法律建立专门的诉讼程序 ,为当事人不服人民法院对民事诉讼费用的裁判提供救济。     

论我国股东派生诉讼的成本承担和司法许可

法院主导下的公司对派生诉讼成本的承担和对诉讼实质意义上的司法许可是两个紧密联接的股东派生诉讼核心制度安排:只有公司承担原告股东的派生诉讼成本,诉讼才有可能被股东提起;诉讼司法许可不仅使法院有机会事先甄别、剔除无益诉讼,而且公司承担股东诉讼成本也才具有正当性.这两个制度安排相互配合、相互照应,旨在鼓励有益诉讼、给予股东正当司法救济途径,和抑制无益诉讼、保护公司经营自由防止股东不当干涉之间取得大概的平衡.我国《公司法》第152条的修改方向应该是一方面给予法院阻止股东任意和无理由诉讼的司法许可权力;另一方面,如果派生诉讼案件经法院审查后允许进入诉讼程序,公司就应承担原告股东案件的诉讼费用,无论股东最后胜诉与否.     

行政审判事实审查的几个问题

行政审判对具体行政行为事实审查的标准不是《行政诉讼法》第61条规定的“事实清楚”,而是第54条规定的“主要证据充分”,法院不应以自己对事实的判断代替行政机关对事实的认定。行政审判中的认证标准是法律,行政机关的“心证”不受法院审查。行政判决书中法院查明的事实不是引起争议的事实,而是行政执法程序等事实。     

庭审阶段补充侦查制度合理性省思——以审判中心主义为背景

庭审阶段的补充侦查制度是职权主义诉讼结构和"侦查中心主义"的产物,其理念是追求"实体真实"。该制度不符合当前以审判为中心的刑事诉讼制度改革的精神,有违控辩平衡的诉讼原则,也不利于保障被告人的人权,导致司法资源浪费和诉讼效率降低,且有侦查权僭越审判权之嫌。针对上述弊端,结合检察机关正在实行的以"案-件比"为中心的考核机制,宜尽快废除庭审阶段的补充侦查制度。作为补偿,应当赋予控辩双方平等的证据申请权,改由人民法院进行庭外调查,庭外调查的重点应是有利于被告人的证据。对于庭审阶段翻证的证人,不宜由侦查(调查)机关单方面询问核实,而应当通知其出庭作证。