摘要

我国专利侵权损害赔偿存在“赔偿低、举证难、周期长”等问题，已经制约了我国科技创新发展，专利侵权赔偿中的合理许可费制度有适用简单、便捷的特点，是美、日、德等西方发达国家专利侵权损害赔偿制度的主流。但该制度在我国适用率极低，而原本兜底适用的法定赔偿适用率却达到98%以上。因此，研究改进专利合理许可费赔偿制度在我国适用有其必要性和重大意义。

我国专利侵权赔偿中的合理许可费制度起步较早，但发展缓慢。在现阶段，专利侵权合理许可费赔偿制度存在适用范围狭窄、适用顺序固化、适用模式单一、适用过程简陋的问题。存在上述问题的原因主要有：我国专利转化率低、许可贸易不发达导致可参照许可合同确定的许可费不多；我国虚假诉讼现象在一定程度上存在，导致法院对许可合同真实性保持谨慎态度；我国法官在适用自由心证时往往省略心证过程，导致裁判过程过于简陋；对我国专利侵权合理许可费制度法律条文的限缩性解释导致在没有可以供参考的相同专利的许可费时，直接适用法定赔偿。

专利权属于民事财产权利范畴，应从民事财产权损害赔偿理论探求专利合理许可费赔偿的理论基础。在以物权为代表的有形财产权受到侵害时，物权人丧失了通过在该物上设立用益物权的物权性方式或通过租赁契约的债权性方式允许他人使用自己物的权利，因此也丧失允许他人使用而获得的收益，权利人可以请求相当于用益物权使用费或租金的赔偿。人格权财产性权益受到侵害，权利人也可以请求人格权财产性权益许可费赔偿。专利侵权合理许可费赔偿是指法官以有意合法制造、销售或使用该专利以获得市场合理利润的人，在市场上所愿意支付的许可费数额，直接拟定为专利权人最低应获得赔偿额，具有财产性、预期性、属人性、确定性的事实属性和法定性、拟定性、裁量性的法律属性。三种财产权利（益）侵权损害合理许可使用费赔偿有相同之处亦有不同之处。专利权人在获得合理许可费赔偿的同时是否获得停止侵害的判决对专利侵权合理许可费赔偿的性质有影响。

专利侵权合理许可费赔偿不应适用不当得利制度。合理许可费赔偿数额应高于一般协商许可合同许可费，“高于”的幅度或数量是通过“合理”来调整的。在大多数情况下，计算基数并不是权利人与他人签订合同确定的许可费，而是和侵权行为相匹配许可合同确定的许可费。根据司法解释和司法实践，我国合理许可费赔偿的较高倍数具有一定惩罚性功能，在惩罚性功能由惩罚性赔偿承担后，合理许可费赔偿“倍数”的设置依然有保留必要。

专利侵权侵害的主要是权利人的所失利益，专利损害赔偿额难以计算，因而损害赔偿规范说更适合于专利侵害赔偿。只要有侵权行为发生，就应认定权利人受有损害。根据全面赔偿原则，专利侵权损害赔偿目的是弥补权利人所失利益，这种利益是专利权利用而产生收益的减少或丧失，是专利价值的减损。合理许可费赔偿是将许可费直接拟定为权利人所失利益，是权利人所受损害客观计算的结果，不论权利人是否因侵权行为受到损失或侵权人获得利益，侵权人都应以合理许可费予以赔偿，因此其具有补偿性质，是权利人所失利益最低保障。

合理许可费赔偿制度可以从伦理学、民法学和经济学角度论证其制度正当性。从伦理学角度看，损害赔偿制度是通过对权利人全面补偿来实现矫正正义。传统有形财产损害以存在物质性事实损害为基础，难以适用于无形财产权的专利侵权，但在权利人主观处分自己财产权意志亦受到损害方面，无形财产权和有形财产权并无不同。合理许可费赔偿不考虑专利权人是否有许可事实和许可意愿，只要存在侵权行为，就认为权利人受有损害，专利权人即可请求合理许可费赔偿，从而实现对权利人全面补偿，彰显损害赔偿中人本主义价值；从民法角度看，合理许可费赔偿制度是信赖理论在侵权领域运用，意味着对未来可期待经济利益的保护，是社会信赖关系稳定延续的保障。作为损害赔偿客观计算方法，合理许可费赔偿避免了损害赔偿主观计算方法根据权利个体不同情况承担不同举证责任导致举证困难的窘态，最大限度实现补偿功能，实现了对权利人保护的周全；从经济学角度看，合理许可费赔偿制度体现了责任规则和财产规则的结合，在正常许可费的基础上加以调整以达到完全弥补权利人损害目的。合理许可费赔偿制度简单、便捷地确定权利人损失额，增强了诉讼可预期性。

我国专利侵权合理许可费赔偿制度应借鉴国外经验并结合我国实际做出改进。从制度改进总体思路来看，现阶段我国引进美国的“虚拟谈判法”确定合理许可费赔偿额制度的时机不成熟，该制度和我国现有法定赔偿制度在适用前提、考虑因素、适用过程和作用等方面存在一定重叠；裁判中要加强法官自由心证过程的呈现，增强裁判说服力。

从制度改进具体建议来看，在灵活许可费适用模式方面，我们应允许权利人自由选择适用模式，允许合理许可费赔偿和其他赔偿模式并用，实现对权利人完全赔偿；在扩大适用范围方面，法定赔偿阶段的许可费因素应提前到合理许可费赔偿阶段考虑，把适用合理许可费赔偿的基准扩大到相似专利的许可费；在明确合理许可费倍数赔偿的参考因素方面，从专利权本身权利特征、当事人之间市场竞争关系、侵权专利对于侵权人商业价值、侵权人主观状态四个方面细化合理倍数确定的参考因素，对参考因素和赔偿额关联性进行对比分析，考虑其对赔偿额正或负向影响，以增加合理许可费赔偿适用合理空间，同时提高判决可预测性。标准必要专利合理许可费赔偿应受FRAND许可原则指引，权利人只应获得专利所带来的利益，考虑到专利累积和专利劫持的问题，可以设置最高许可费率限制。当然许可合理许可费赔偿可以借鉴其他国家经验，赔偿额不能超过许可费2倍。

关键词：专利侵权合理许可费 赔偿 适用范围 参考因素

ABSTRACT

The problem of low compensation，difficulty in proof and long period in China patent infringement，has restricted the developmenttechnological innovation in China.With the characteristics of simple and convenient application，the reasonable royalty of patent infringement，is the mainstream patent infringement of western developed countries such as Germany and the United States.However，the application rate of the institution in China is less than 1%，originally as fallback for statutory damages has reached more than 98%.Therefore，it is necessary and significant to study the improvement of the application of reasonable royalty in patent infringement in China.

The patent right belongs to the domain of civil property rights，which is necessary to seek the theoretical basis of the reasonable royalty from the theory damages in civil property rights.When the tangible property right represented by real right is violated，the real right person has lost the right to establish usufructuary right on the matter，or to allow others to use their own property through the contractual way of the lease contract.Therefore，the right holder may claim compensation for the use real right.Property interests of personality rights are violated，the right holder may claim reasonable royalty of property interests of personality rights.The reasonable royalty of patent infringement refers to the minimum amount compensation that a judge directly formulated，it is based on license fee the person who legally manufactures，sell or use the patent to obtain a reasonable market profit，will be willing to pay in the market.The reasonable royalty has factual attribute in Property，anticipation，human nature，certainty and legal attribute in legality，formulation discretionary.The three types of reasonable royalty have similarities and differences.

The unjust enrichment system should not be applied to the reasonable royalty of patent infringement.The amount of the reasonable royalty should be higher than the general agreement license fee，and the“higher”amplitude or quantity is adjusted by“reasonable”.In most cases，the calculation base is the license fee not by the license contract but the contract match with infringement.According to the judicial interpretation of the Supreme Court and judicial practice，the higher multiple of reasonable royalty has a certain punitive function，after the punitive function is assumed by punitive damages，the set of the“multiple”of the reasonable royalty is still necessary.

Patent infringement is mainly the lost profit of right holder，the damages of patent infringement are difficult to calculate，so the norm theory damage is more suitable for patent infringement.As long as the infringement occurs，the right holder shall be deemed to be harmed.According to the principle of comprehensive compensation，the purpose of patent infringement damages is to make up for the lost interest of the right holder.This interest is reduce or loss of the profit generated by the patent right，which is the loss of the patent value.

Reasonable royalty is thelost profit which directly set the the license fee for.and it is the result of the objective calculation of the damage to the right holder.No matter whether the lost profit or infringers profits，the infringer should make compensation with the reasonable license fee，so it has the nature of compensation，which is the lowest guarantee for the right person to lose interest，the reasonable royalty compensation is necessary，so it has the character of compensation，which is the the minimum security of right holder.

The reasonable royalty institution can demonstrate its institutional justice from theperspective of ethics，civil law and economics.

From an ethical perspective，the damage compensation system is to achieve corrective justice through comprehensive compensation to right holders.The damage of traditional tangible property is based on material damage，which is difficult to apply to patent infringement of intangible property rights，but the will of subjective disposal of rights holders is damaged，which is no different from the damage of tangible property rights.Reasonable royalty does not consider whether the patentee has the license facts and permission intention.As long as there is infringement，the rights holder is deemed to have damages，and the patentee can request for reasonable royalty compensation，thus achieving full compensation to the right holder，highlighting the value of humanism in damages.

From the perspective of civil law，the reasonable royalty compensation system is the application of trust theory in the field of infringement，which means that we can expect the protection of economic interests in the future，and it is a guarantee for the stability and continuity of social trust relations.As an objective calculation method of damage compensation，the reasonable royalty compensation avoids the dilemma of difficulty in subjective calculation method of damage based on individual rights of different rights，and maximizes the compensation function to realize the protection of rights holders.

From the perspective of economics，the reasonable royalty compensation system embodies the combination of liability rules and property rules，and adjusts on the basis of license fees，so as to to completely compensate for the damages of rights holder The reasonable royalty system makes it simple and convenient to determine the loss of the right holder，enhance the predictability of the litigation，promote the prompt settlement of the reasonable parties or the choice of litigation，avoid excessive litigation，and achieve the purpose of saving judicial resources and litigation economics.

The reasonable royalty of patent infringement in China started earlier，but it is slow to develop.At this stage，the system has the problems of narrow application scope，solidified application order，single application mode，and simple application process.The reasons are as follows：there are not many established royalties；Sham false lawsuits exist to a certain extent；judges are reluctant to apply the free confession，and even if they are applicable，the confession process is often omitted；judges are reluctant to apply free evaluation of evidence，and even if they are applicable，they often omit the process of conviction；Constriction understanding of legal provisions

From the perspective of institutional improvement，we should not introduce the“hypothetical negotiation”in the United States to determine reasonable licensing royalty，which is overlapped with the existing statutory compensation system in China；In the referee，it is necessary to strengthen the presentation of the judge's free evaluation process and enhance the persuasiveness of the referees.

From the specific proposals for institutional improvement，in terms of flexible use of reasonable royalty，we should allow rights holders to freely choose the applicable model and allow reasonable royalty tobe used in combination with other compensation models to achieve full compensation to right holders；IN terms of expanding the scope of application，the licensing fee factor at the statutory compensation stage should be considered in advance to the stage for reasonable royalty；the basis for the application of reasonable royalty should be expanded to the license fee for similar patents，Statutory compensation can only be applied if there are no similar or similar patents of the same or similar industries that meet the conditions for analysis.

In clarifying the reference factors for reasonable royalty，the Georgia-Pacific15 factors and the explicit exploration of the United States to determine the reasonable royalty must be used for reference in China.

To refine the reference factors of reasonable multiples from four aspects：the characteristics of the right of the patent itself，the market competition relationship between the parties，the infringement patent for theinfringer's business value and the subjective.And a comparative analysis of the correlations between reference factors and compensation amounts is needed，considering its positive or negative impact on the amount of compensation，to increase the reasonable license fee compensation and improve the predictability of the judgment.

Reasonable royalty compensation for standard essential patents should be guided by FRAND licensing principles，Right holders should only obtain the benefits of patents，Considering the patent holdup and royalty Stacking，the maximum license rate limit can be set.Reasonable royalty compensation for license of rights can draw on the experience of other countries，and the amount of compensation cannot exceed 2 times the license fee.

Key words：patent infringement reasonable royalty scope of application reference factors