我国专利侵权损害赔偿额计算方法适用论要

我国专利侵权损害赔偿额计算方法的规定经过了一个变化发展的过程,《专利法》第65条规定了四种损害赔偿额的计算方法。实际损失的确定可采取权利产品销量下降计算法、成本增加计算法、价格腐蚀计算法,侵权所得以侵权产品在市场上销售的总数与每件侵权产品的营业利润或者销售利润之积得出,许可使用费可按固定许可费确定法、惯例确定法、虚拟自愿协商法、分析法计算,适用法定赔偿时应考虑多种因素。     

Competitive analysis using a flexible demand specification

Econometric methods can be helpful when one is trying to understandthe nature of competition between products in differentiatedproducts industries, an issue that arises in many competitionpolicy contexts. However, misspecification of the consumer demandsystem can result in biased econometric results and misleadingconclusions. We discuss some considerations that go into choosinga demand system specification and suggest that a ‘flexiblefunctional form’ be used. This approach avoids placingrestrictions on the demand elasticities. We identify and discussother issues that arise in the estimation of demand systems.We conclude with an empirical example concerning the calculationof lost profits damages in a patent infringement case. Thisexample demonstrates how using a flexible functional form leadsto a substantially more reliable damages calculation than usingthe particular restrictive functional form that is commonlyused to calculate lost profits damages in patent litigation.     

违约金担保功能的异化与回归——以对违约金类型的考察为中心

违约金在历史上仅作为债务履行的担保工具而存在。为促使债务人履行债务,当事人往往约定较高数额的违约金,以形成一种履行上的压力。此类违约金的目的在于担保履行,而非解决损害赔偿,是固有意义的违约金。同时,此类违约金也并非当然具有惩罚违约行为之目的。而惩罚性违约金的效力在于,违约方除须支付违约金外,尚须继续履行债务或者负担损害赔偿债务。赔偿性违约金本不属于违约金之范畴,原系当事人在订立合同时对损害赔偿总额之预定。后世法律为简化损害赔偿程序、平衡当事人利益,将违约金推定为损害赔偿总额预定,遂产生赔偿性违约金。我国合同法第114条以规范赔偿性违约金为主,但亦不完全否定惩罚性违约金,其主要问题在于,违约金固有的担保功能丧失殆尽,而赔偿性违约金之简化损害赔偿的功能也没能充分发挥。应对合同法第114条在重新解释的基础上进行必要的改造,以明确违约金的功能定位,并改进其法律效力。     

Contract Damages, Corrective Justice and Punishment

This article re-examines the established principle that contract damages compensate but do not punish from the theoretical perspective of corrective justice and, in particular, the version advocated by Professor Ernest Weinrib. Weinrib argues that corrective justice affirms the traditional view that contract damages should be circumscribed by compensatory functions, and the notion of punitive damages is inconsistent with the structure of corrective justice and hence contractual rights. The correctness of this conclusion depends, however, on what is understood by punishment. This article argues that punishment is not necessarily explicable only as a form of state punishment, but may (adopting the retributive idea of punishment expounded by Jane Hampton) also be understood as a form of correlatively-structured response that redresses the moral injury inflicted by one's conduct on another. If that is the case, punitive damages for breach of contract may be justified even within the framework of corrective justice.     

惩罚性违约金制度探析

我国《合同法》承认违约金具有补偿性和惩罚性,但并未明确规定在何种情况下为补偿性违约金,何种情况下为惩罚性违约金,而不同性质的违约金其责任适用亦不同。为避免违约金责任适用的混乱,发挥违约金责任应有的功效,在对违约金性质进行分析的基础上,提出违约金的性质应由当事人约定,对补偿性违约金可依法进行国家干预,对惩罚性违约金的最高限额应进行限制。     

Punitive Damage Decision Making: The Decisions of Citizens and Trial Court Judges

Some states have allocated the authority to determine the amount of punitive damages to judges rather than to juries. This study explored the determination of damages by jury-eligible citizens and trial court judges. The punitive damage awards of both groups were of similar magnitude and variability. The compensatory damages of jurors were marginally lower but, in some conditions, were more variable than the compensatory damage awards of judges. Both groups appropriately utilized information about both the actual and potential severity of the harm to the plaintiff in determining punitive damages and used only the actual severity of the injury in determining compensatory damages. The punitive damage awards of both groups were influenced by the wealth of the defendant, but the compensatory damage awards of judges were marginally more influenced by defendant wealth than those of citizens. The results are discussed in the context of proposals for punitive damages reform.     

美国海商法惩罚性赔偿演变:变动不居的模式

本文首先论述了美国惩罚性赔偿的历史演变以及立法与司法实践中支持派与反对派的论争 ,继而阐述了美国海商法惩罚性赔偿的司法历程 ,分析了在不同的历史时期美国不同的立法尤其司法 (包括普通法 )对海商法惩罚性赔偿的变动不居的态度 ,指出惩罚性赔偿在美国海商法中渐趋式微     

Those crazy transaction costs: on the irrelevance of the equivalence between monetary damages and specific performance

The Coase theorem tells us that monetary damages and specific performance remedies for breach of contract have identical effects when transaction costs are zero. This has become a standard part of the literature on the economics of contract law. This note argues that the traditional view is somewhat misguided, as monetary damages and specific performance remedies are unnecessary in a zero transaction costs world. We go on to show how the presence of transaction costs impact the decisions of contracting parties as between the inclusion of liquidated damages clauses in contracts and resorting to litigation that could result in the application of either monetary damages or specific performance remedies.     

FORENSIC ECONOMICS: AN INTRODUCTION WITH SPECIAL EMPHASIS ON PRICE FIXING

This paper aims at explaining accepted methods of forensic analysisand how forensic economics is used in the context of competition-lawenforcement. Illustrations are drawn from ancient and modernantitrust cases involving price-fixing allegations. The statedgoal of antitrust laws of most nations is deterrence. Optimaldeterrence requires that cartel penalties be based on multiplesof economic injuries. Yet, antitrust authorities are typicallyreluctant to calculate fines on the basis of damages becauseof perceived analytical challenges or because the fact-finderslack needed economic education. However, reasonable estimatesof damages can often be quickly prepared using simpler methodsthan econometric modeling. More often than not, alternativeestimates of cartel overcharges tend to be mutually supportive.The reluctance of antitrust authorities to base fines on damagesseems to indicate an abundance of caution.     

违约金调减的证明责任问题

在对《民法典》第585条第2款后段的解读中,应将"违约金过分高于损失"理解为违约金调减请求的权利成立要件,将法官自由裁量权的行使理解为权利成立的法律后果。这一区分对应了违约金的双重功能,可为违约金调减请求提供更清晰的审理思路。成立要件的审理对应违约金的补偿性功能,适用诉讼法理;调减衡量因素的审理对应违约金的履约压力功能,部分适用非讼法理。根据现行法,"违约金过分高于损失"的证明责任应由违约方承担,且不能转移。违约方的证明困难属于法官自由心证的范畴,在具体诉讼中可以通过事案解明义务缓解,但不改变证明责任、证明标准以及由此决定的本证与反证的区分。违约金调减衡量因素的调查不存在证明责任问题,应围绕法官自由裁量权的行使,在诉讼法理与非讼法理的交错适用中展开。     

完善我国著作权侵权损害赔偿的计算方法——基于比较法视野的研究启示

著作权侵权损害赔偿的计算方法在各国（地区）立法以及国际条约中均有所体现,但其实质内容却不尽相同。基于此,以我国著作权立法与实践的现状检讨为突破,从宏观意义上的整体制度架构和微观层面上的具体内容规则展开比较研究。是构建理想制度形态的重要路径。我国著作权侵权损害赔偿计算方法的立法修订应在雏固现有整体框架的基础上,平行三种计算方法的适用序位,精心雕琢“实际损失”与“侵权获利”的考量标准,全面构建科学合理的法定赔偿制度。     

我国商标侵权适用法定赔偿的新思考--基于北京知识产权法院2015-2019年判决的分析

法定赔偿是我国商标侵权损害赔偿的重要组成部分。北京知识产权法院5年来的司法实践表明:法定赔偿适用的比例畸高,法定赔偿判赔数额和支持率呈现不稳定的趋势,法定赔偿的考量因素体系也正在形成。但是这仍然无法改变法定赔偿存在偏离末位救济的立法初衷、部分背离补偿性赔偿的功能以及缺乏较为一致的适用规则等问题的现状。基于此,应对我国商标侵权法定赔偿进行新设计。法定赔偿应成为与实际损失、侵权获利、许可费的倍数并行的损害赔偿计算方式,同时取消"难以确定"这一适用条件,明确计算过程,还应结合商标侵权的特殊性建立考量因素体系并优化证据规则。     

Two Steps Forward,One Step Back: One Step (Support) LTD v Morris‐Garner and Another

One Step is an important decision that deals with the circumstances in which a claimant may recover damages in contract on the so‐called Wrotham Park basis, valued as the amount that would hypothetically have been negotiated between willing parties to release the defendant from his obligation. This note argues that, although the Supreme Court was right not to award damages on this basis in this case, the test laid down by their Lordships for when such damages are available is unclear and will be difficult to apply.     

A Framework for Assessing Groundwater Damages from Contamination

Certain government agencies and Indian tribes can recover compensatory damages for injuries to groundwater caused by releases of hazardous substances. Several states have initiated claims for groundwater damages from contamination without specific guidance for assessing such damages. Many settlements have occurred, but in states such as New Mexico and New Jersey, the trustees for these natural resources have not been successful when litigating their groundwater damage claims, largely because their claims were not consistent with well-established scientific and economic principles. This article provides a framework for assessing groundwater damages from contamination that is based on well-established scientific and economic principles.     

论医疗过失损害赔偿责任的适当限制规则

医疗过失损害赔偿责任与一般的人身损害赔偿责任不同,具有一定的特殊性,因此,应当确立医疗损害赔偿适当限制规则。具体的限制方法,应当限制精神损害抚慰金的赔偿数额、应当对医疗过失引起的财产损害赔偿运用原因力规则合理确定、应当特别强调定期金赔偿在医疗过失损害赔偿中的适用和应当借鉴排除间接来源规则在医疗过失损害赔偿中实行损益相抵规则。     

知识产权侵权惩罚性赔偿数额的司法确定问题研究

《中华人民共和国民法典》第1185条以一般规则的形式宣示我国知识产权侵权惩罚性赔偿制度的全面确立。抓紧落实惩罚性赔偿是知识产权司法面临的重大课题,惩罚性赔偿数额的确定是其中的主要问题。基数难以确定,倍数的确定缺乏统一标准,法定赔偿滥用,惩罚性赔偿、法定赔偿、酌定赔偿适用混乱,地方性裁判指南规定的数额标准不一致导致"类案不同判"等,都是当前损害赔偿数额确定中的问题。为解决上述问题,建议以权利人的实际损失为准确定惩罚性赔偿的基数,侵权获利或者许可使用费倍数作为对权利人实际损失的推定;明确实际损失的构成,在损失计算方法上适当借鉴域外经验;统一侵权获利的确定标准,同时考虑技术分摊问题;明确许可使用费的合理倍数可以作为惩罚性赔偿的基数,明确许可使用费确定时的考量因素;惩罚性赔偿的基数不应包括权利人制止侵权所支付的合理开支;酌定赔偿可以作为惩罚性赔偿的基数;满足一定条件情况下的法定赔偿可以作为惩罚性赔偿的基数。综合考虑刑事罚金、行政罚款、惩罚性赔偿的关系。出台司法解释、发布指导性案例,规范地方法院裁判惩罚性赔偿案件数额标准不一致的情形。     

警察公共关系危机议题管理研究

近年来,警察公共关系危机频频发生,警民关系及警察形象严重受损。如何正确应对危机,重塑警察形象意义重大。议题管理的功能决定了它是应对警察公共关系危机的有效办法之一。     

惩罚性赔偿制度在侵权法中的基础及其适用

惩罚性赔偿制度的出现和发展有其深厚的理论根基和时代背景 ,在侵权法中 ,它是各种基本功能相互间不断矛盾碰撞和协调发展的必然产物。本文以侵权法基本功能的演变为楔入点 ,着重在这一大背景下分析适用惩罚性赔偿制度的重要性 ,并结合国外立法经验对我国惩罚性赔偿制度的构建提出了立法建议     

Measuring damages for lost enjoyment of life: the view from the bench and the jury box

Civil jury instructions are inconsistent in defining what constitutes noneconomic damages, which may include pain, suffering, disability, disfigurement, and loss of enjoyment of life (LEL), among other injury sequelae. This inconsistency has been manifested recently in court decisions that have considered whether LEL should be treated as a separate element of noneconomic damages, distinct from pain and suffering. This paper reviews the case law on this issue and also describes a jury simulation experiment. Mock jurors awarded damages after they received instructions on noneconomic damages in which LEL was (1) not identified as a distinct element of damages; (2) defined as an element of damages distinct from pain and suffering, but participants awarded a single amount for noneconomic damages; or (3) defined as a distinct element of damages, and participants awarded separate amounts for LEL and pain and suffering. Instructions about LEL resulted in larger awards, but only when mock jurors also made a separate award for that element of damages.     

The Limits of the Preponderance of the Evidence Standard: Justifiably Naked Statistical Evidence and Multiple Causation

The preponderance-of-the-evidence standard usually is understood to mean that the plaintiff must show that the probability that the defendant is in fact liable exceeds 1/2. Several commentators and at least one court have suggested that in some situations it may be preferable to make each defendant pay plaintiff's damages discounted by the probability that the defendant in question is in fact liable. This article analyzes these and other decision rules from the standpoint of statistical decision theory. It argues that in most cases involving only one potential defendant, the conventional interpretation of the preponderance standard is appropriate, but it notes an important exception. The article also considers cases involving many defendants, only one of whom could have caused the injury to plaintiff. It argues that ordinarily the single defendant most likely to have been responsible should be liable for all the damages, even when the probability associated with this defendant is less than 1/2. At the same time, it identifies certain multiple-defendant cases in which the rule that weights each defendant's damages by the probability of that defendant's liability should apply.