知识产权损害赔偿中证明妨碍规则的成本收益分析

《商标法》和《专利解释二》规定的证明妨碍规则的构成要件和法律效果模糊不清且没有统一。通过成本收益分析可知,要求权利人尽力举证或初步举证,应解释为是为了判断侵权人掌握的证据是否对证明待证事实具有不可替代性。参考或根据权利人的主张和提供的证据判定赔偿数额,应解释为推定权利人主张的证据内容成立,同时结合权利人提供的其他证据,确定赔偿数额。与《民诉解释》第112条保持一致,可以获得最优的解释结果。

Cost-benefit analysis on spoliation of evidence rule in intellectual property damages

The elements and legal effects of the spoliation of evidence rule provided by Trademark Law and the 2nd Interpretations on Patent Law are vague and inconsistent. Through cost-benefit analysis, the aim of the rule“requiring the right holder to try its best to adduce evidence or to adduce preliminary evidence”shall be construed as a judging standard to decide whether the evidence under the control of the infringer is irreplaceable to factum probandum. Determining the amount of damages with reference to or based on claims and evidence provided by the right holder shall be construed to determine the amount of damages based on the presumption of the content of the evidence adduced by the right holder and other evidence provided by the right holder. The optimal interpretation can be achieved by keeping consistent with Article 112 of Interpretation on Civil Procedure Law.