SPC Interpretations (II) on Application of Law in the Patent Infringement Dispute Cases_EN_20160326

1、最高人民法院關(guān)于審理侵犯專利權(quán)糾紛案件應(yīng)用法律若干問(wèn)題的解釋（二）Interpretation II of the Supreme People's Court on Certain Issues Concerning the Application of Law in the Trial of Patent Infringement Dispute Cases（2016年1月25日最高人民法院審判委員會(huì)第1676次會(huì)議通過(guò)，自2016年4月1日起施行）(Adopted at the 1676th Meeting of the Judicial Committee of the Sup

2、reme People's Court on January 25, 2016, this Interpretation II shall become effective as of April 1, 2016) 為正確審理侵犯專利權(quán)糾紛案件，根據(jù)中華人民共和國(guó)專利法中華人民共和國(guó)侵權(quán)責(zé)任法中華人民共和國(guó)民事訴訟法等有關(guān)法律規(guī)定，結(jié)合審判實(shí)踐，制定本解釋。With a view to correctly hearing cases of patent infringement disputes, this Interpretation is formulated in accorda

3、nce with the Patent Law, the Tort Law, the Civil Procedure Law and other relevant laws and regulations and by taking into account the actual trial practices.第一條 權(quán)利要求書(shū)有兩項(xiàng)以上權(quán)利要求的，權(quán)利人應(yīng)當(dāng)在起訴狀中載明據(jù)以起訴被訴侵權(quán)人侵犯其專利權(quán)的權(quán)利要求。起訴狀對(duì)此未記載或者記載不明的，人民法院應(yīng)當(dāng)要求權(quán)利人明確。經(jīng)釋明，權(quán)利人仍不予明確的，人民法院可以裁定駁回起訴。Article 1 Where a written claim o

4、f rights contains two or more claims, the right holder concerned shall specify in the complaint the claims on whose basis the alleged infringer is being sued for patent infringement. Where such claims are not specified or not clearly stated in the complaint, the competent people's court shall re

5、quire the right holder to specify the claims concerned. Where the right holder still fails to do so after relevant situations have been explained thereto, the people's court may enter a ruling to dismiss the complaint.第二條 權(quán)利人在專利侵權(quán)訴訟中主張的權(quán)利要求被專利復(fù)審委員會(huì)宣告無(wú)效的，審理侵犯專利權(quán)糾紛案件的人民法院可以裁定駁回權(quán)利人基于該無(wú)效權(quán)利要求的起訴。Arti

6、cle 2 Where the claims alleged by a right holder in a patent infringement lawsuit is declared invalid by the Patent Re-examination Board, the people's court hearing the case of patent infringement disputes may enter a ruling to dismiss the right holders complaint based on the invalid claims. 有證據(jù)

7、證明宣告上述權(quán)利要求無(wú)效的決定被生效的行政判決撤銷的，權(quán)利人可以另行起訴。Nevertheless, the right holder may file a new complaint if there is evidence that the decision by the Patent Re-examination Board to declare the relevant patent invalid is revoked by a binding administrative judgement.專利權(quán)人另行起訴的，訴訟時(shí)效期間從本條第二款所稱行政判決書(shū)送達(dá)之日起計(jì)算。When the

8、 right holder files a new complaint, the time limitation period starts from the date of service of the administrative judgement referred in paragraph 2 of this Article.第三條 因明顯違反專利法第二十六條第三款、第四款導(dǎo)致說(shuō)明書(shū)無(wú)法用于解釋權(quán)利要求，且不屬于本解釋第四條規(guī)定的情形，專利權(quán)因此被請(qǐng)求宣告無(wú)效的，審理侵犯專利權(quán)糾紛案件的人民法院一般應(yīng)當(dāng)裁定中止訴訟；在合理期限內(nèi)專利權(quán)未被請(qǐng)求宣告無(wú)效的，人民法院可以根據(jù)權(quán)利要求的記載確

9、定專利權(quán)的保護(hù)范圍。Article 3 Where the specifications cannot be used to explain the written claim of rights because of the clear violation of Section 3 and Section 4 of the Article 26 of the Patent Law, and the circumstances specified in Article 4 herein are not applicable, therefore a request of invalidatio

10、n has been filed against the patent, the people's court for the patent infringement dispute case in general shall render a ruling to suspend the litigation; where no request of invalidation has been filed against said patent right within a reasonable period of time, the competent people's co

11、urt may determine the protection scope of patent according to the written claim of rights.第四條 權(quán)利要求書(shū)、說(shuō)明書(shū)及附圖中的語(yǔ)法、文字、標(biāo)點(diǎn)、圖形、符號(hào)等存有歧義，但本領(lǐng)域普通技術(shù)人員通過(guò)閱讀權(quán)利要求書(shū)、說(shuō)明書(shū)及附圖可以得出唯一理解的，人民法院應(yīng)當(dāng)根據(jù)該唯一理解予以認(rèn)定。Article 4 Where ambiguity exists in the grammar, words, punctuation, figures or symbols etc. of the written claim of r

12、ights, the specifications or the attached drawings, nonetheless the skilled in the art is able find the sole explanation via reading the written claim of rights, the specification and the drawings, the people's court shall determine their meanings according to such sole explanation.第五條 在人民法院確定專利

13、權(quán)的保護(hù)范圍時(shí)，獨(dú)立權(quán)利要求的前序部分、特征部分以及從屬權(quán)利要求的引用部分、限定部分記載的技術(shù)特征均有限定作用。Article 5 When the people's court determines the scope of patent protection, the technical features as described in the preamble and the characterizing part of the independent claims, and in the reference part and the limitation part of the

14、 dependent claims shall all perform the function of defining.第六條 人民法院可以運(yùn)用與涉案專利存在分案申請(qǐng)關(guān)系的其他專利及其專利審查檔案、生效的專利授權(quán)確權(quán)裁判文書(shū)解釋涉案專利的權(quán)利要求。Article 6 The people's court may employ patents in divisional application relationships with the patent at issue, their patent examination files and binding judgements on

15、grant and affirmation of such patents to interpret the claims of the patent at issue.專利審查檔案，包括專利審查、復(fù)審、無(wú)效程序中專利申請(qǐng)人或者專利權(quán)人提交的書(shū)面材料，國(guó)務(wù)院專利行政部門及其專利復(fù)審委員會(huì)制作的審查意見(jiàn)通知書(shū)、會(huì)晤記錄、口頭審理記錄、生效的專利復(fù)審請(qǐng)求審查決定書(shū)和專利權(quán)無(wú)效宣告請(qǐng)求審查決定書(shū)等。 Patent examination files shall include the written materials submitted by patent applicants or p

16、atentees during the procedures of patent examination, re-examination and invalidation, as well as the notices on examination opinions, meeting minutes, oral hearing records, binding written examination decisions on patent re-examination requests, written examination decisions on the requests for dec

17、laring patents invalid, etc. issued by the patent administration of the State Council and its Patent Re-examination Board.第七條 被訴侵權(quán)技術(shù)方案在包含封閉式組合物權(quán)利要求全部技術(shù)特征的基礎(chǔ)上增加其他技術(shù)特征的，人民法院應(yīng)當(dāng)認(rèn)定被訴侵權(quán)技術(shù)方案未落入專利權(quán)的保護(hù)范圍，但該增加的技術(shù)特征屬于不可避免的常規(guī)數(shù)量雜質(zhì)的除外。Article 7 If an alleged infringing technical solution contains additional techn

18、ical features on the basis of all the technical features in an exhausted combination claim of right, the people's court shall determine that the alleged infringing technical solution does not fall under the protection scope of the patent, unless the additional technical features are unavoidable

19、impurities in normal quantities.前款所稱封閉式組合物權(quán)利要求，一般不包括中藥組合物權(quán)利要求。The exhausted combination claim of right generally does not include combinations of traditional Chinese medicine.第八條 功能性特征，是指對(duì)于結(jié)構(gòu)、組分、步驟、條件或其之間的關(guān)系等，通過(guò)其在發(fā)明創(chuàng)造中所起的功能或者效果進(jìn)行限定的技術(shù)特征，但本領(lǐng)域普通技術(shù)人員僅通過(guò)閱讀權(quán)利要求即可直接、明確地確定實(shí)現(xiàn)上述功能或者效果的具體實(shí)施方式的除外。Article 8 Fun

20、ctional features are technical features that only serve to define structures, compositions, steps, conditions or the relations thereof according to their functions or effects in the relevant invention, except that the ordinary skilled in the art are able to directly and clearly define the specific m

21、ethods of implementation to realize the above functions via reading the claim of rights alone.與說(shuō)明書(shū)及附圖記載的實(shí)現(xiàn)前款所稱功能或者效果不可缺少的技術(shù)特征相比，被訴侵權(quán)技術(shù)方案的相應(yīng)技術(shù)特征是以基本相同的手段，實(shí)現(xiàn)相同的功能，達(dá)到相同的效果，且本領(lǐng)域普通技術(shù)人員在被訴侵權(quán)行為發(fā)生時(shí)無(wú)需經(jīng)過(guò)創(chuàng)造性勞動(dòng)就能夠聯(lián)想到的，人民法院應(yīng)當(dāng)認(rèn)定該相應(yīng)技術(shù)特征與功能性特征相同或者等同。Where, as compared to the technical features that are recorded in

22、the specifications and the attached drawings and are indispensable for achieving the aforesaid functions or effects, the corresponding technical features of an alleged infringing technical solution adopt substantially the same means to achieve substantially the same functions and effects, and can be

23、 contemplated without creative work by the ordinary skilled in the art at the time of the occurrence of the alleged infringement activities, the competent people's court shall determine that such corresponding technical features are the same as or equivalent to the functional features.第九條 被訴侵權(quán)技術(shù)

24、方案不能適用于權(quán)利要求中使用環(huán)境特征所限定的使用環(huán)境的，人民法院應(yīng)當(dāng)認(rèn)定被訴侵權(quán)技術(shù)方案未落入專利權(quán)的保護(hù)范圍。Article 9 Where an alleged infringing technical solution cannot be applied to the use environment defined by the use environment features contained in the claim of rights for the patent at issue, the people's court shall determine that the

25、alleged infringing technical solution does not fall under the protection scope of the patent.第十條 對(duì)于權(quán)利要求中以制備方法界定產(chǎn)品的技術(shù)特征，被訴侵權(quán)產(chǎn)品的制備方法與其不相同也不等同的，人民法院應(yīng)當(dāng)認(rèn)定被訴侵權(quán)技術(shù)方案未落入專利權(quán)的保護(hù)范圍。Article 10 Where the preparation methods for an alleged infringing product are neither the same as, nor equivalent to, the technica

26、l features in the claim of rights that use preparation methods to define the relevant patented product, the people's court shall determine that the relevant alleged infringing technical solution does not fall under the protection scope of the patent.第十一條 方法權(quán)利要求未明確記載技術(shù)步驟的先后順序，但本領(lǐng)域普通技術(shù)人員閱讀權(quán)利要求書(shū)、說(shuō)明

27、書(shū)及附圖后直接、明確地認(rèn)為該技術(shù)步驟應(yīng)當(dāng)按照特定順序?qū)嵤┑?，人民法院?yīng)當(dāng)認(rèn)定該步驟順序?qū)τ趯＠麢?quán)的保護(hù)范圍具有限定作用。Article 11 Where the claim of rights of a patented method does not clearly describe the sequence of technical steps, nonetheless the ordinary skilled in the art directly and clearly believes that such technical steps should be implemented i

28、n a specific sequence, the people's court shall determine that such sequence shall limit the protection scope of the patent right.第十二條 權(quán)利要求采用“至少”“不超過(guò)”等用語(yǔ)對(duì)數(shù)值特征進(jìn)行界定，且本領(lǐng)域普通技術(shù)人員閱讀權(quán)利要求書(shū)、說(shuō)明書(shū)及附圖后認(rèn)為專利技術(shù)方案特別強(qiáng)調(diào)該用語(yǔ)對(duì)技術(shù)特征的限定作用，權(quán)利人主張與其不相同的數(shù)值特征屬于等同特征的，人民法院不予支持。Article 12 Where phrases such as “at least”, “no m

29、ore than” etc. are adopted in a claim of rights to define numerical features, and the ordinary skilled in the art, after reading the written claim of rights, the specifications and the attached drawings, place special emphasis on the role of such phrases to strictly define technical features, the pe

30、ople's court shall not support the claim raised by the right holder that technical features different from such numerical features are equivalent features.第十三條 權(quán)利人證明專利申請(qǐng)人、專利權(quán)人在專利授權(quán)確權(quán)程序中對(duì)權(quán)利要求書(shū)、說(shuō)明書(shū)及附圖的限縮性修改或者陳述被明確否定的，人民法院應(yīng)當(dāng)認(rèn)定該修改或者陳述未導(dǎo)致技術(shù)方案的放棄。Article 13 Where a patent applicant or patentees restri

31、ctive or reductive modifications or statements with respect to the claim are clearly rejected during the process of grant and affirmation of patent rights, the people's court shall determine that such modifications or statements have not led to the waiver of the technical solution.第十四條 人民法院在認(rèn)定一般

32、消費(fèi)者對(duì)于外觀設(shè)計(jì)所具有的知識(shí)水平和認(rèn)知能力時(shí)，一般應(yīng)當(dāng)考慮被訴侵權(quán)行為發(fā)生時(shí)授權(quán)外觀設(shè)計(jì)所屬相同或者相近種類產(chǎn)品的設(shè)計(jì)空間。設(shè)計(jì)空間較大的，人民法院可以認(rèn)定一般消費(fèi)者通常不容易注意到不同設(shè)計(jì)之間的較小區(qū)別；設(shè)計(jì)空間較小的，人民法院可以認(rèn)定一般消費(fèi)者通常更容易注意到不同設(shè)計(jì)之間的較小區(qū)別。Article 14 When determining ordinary consumers' level of knowledge and cognitive ability as regards a design, a people's court shall in general con

33、sider the design space of the products of same or similar styles as the patented design at the occurrence of infringement activities. Where the design space is larger, ordinary consumers are usually unlikely to notice the minor differences between different designs; on the other hand, where the desi

34、gn space is smaller, ordinary consumer are usually more likely to notice the minor differences between different designs.第十五條 對(duì)于成套產(chǎn)品的外觀設(shè)計(jì)專利，被訴侵權(quán)設(shè)計(jì)與其一項(xiàng)外觀設(shè)計(jì)相同或者近似的，人民法院應(yīng)當(dāng)認(rèn)定被訴侵權(quán)設(shè)計(jì)落入專利權(quán)的保護(hù)范圍。Article 15 Where an alleged infringing design is the same as or similar to one of the patented designs of a compl

35、ete set of products, the people's court shall determine that the alleged infringing design falls under the protection scope of the patent.第十六條 對(duì)于組裝關(guān)系唯一的組件產(chǎn)品的外觀設(shè)計(jì)專利，被訴侵權(quán)設(shè)計(jì)與其組合狀態(tài)下的外觀設(shè)計(jì)相同或者近似的，人民法院應(yīng)當(dāng)認(rèn)定被訴侵權(quán)設(shè)計(jì)落入專利權(quán)的保護(hù)范圍。Article 16 As regards the design patent of a component product with a unique asse

36、mbly pattern, if an alleged infringing design is the same as or similar to the overall design of the component product after assembly, the people's court shall determine that the alleged infringing design falls under the protection scope of the patent.    對(duì)于各構(gòu)件之間無(wú)組裝關(guān)系或者組裝關(guān)系不唯一的組件產(chǎn)

37、品的外觀設(shè)計(jì)專利，被訴侵權(quán)設(shè)計(jì)與其全部單個(gè)構(gòu)件的外觀設(shè)計(jì)均相同或者近似的，人民法院應(yīng)當(dāng)認(rèn)定被訴侵權(quán)設(shè)計(jì)落入專利權(quán)的保護(hù)范圍；被訴侵權(quán)設(shè)計(jì)缺少其單個(gè)構(gòu)件的外觀設(shè)計(jì)或者與之不相同也不近似的，人民法院應(yīng)當(dāng)認(rèn)定被訴侵權(quán)設(shè)計(jì)未落入專利權(quán)的保護(hù)范圍。As regards the design patent of a component product whose various components do not have a unique assembly pattern or have no assembly pattern at all, if an alleged infringing desig

38、n is the same as or similar to the designs of all the individual components of the component product, the people's court shall determine that the alleged infringing design falls under the protection scope of the patent; and, if the alleged infringing design lacks the design of a certain individu

39、al component or is neither the same as or nor similar to the design of a certain individual component, the people's court shall determine that the alleged infringing design does not fall under the protection scope of the patent.第十七條 對(duì)于變化狀態(tài)產(chǎn)品的外觀設(shè)計(jì)專利，被訴侵權(quán)設(shè)計(jì)與變化狀態(tài)圖所示各種使用狀態(tài)下的外觀設(shè)計(jì)均相同或者近似的，人民法院應(yīng)當(dāng)認(rèn)定被訴侵權(quán)

40、設(shè)計(jì)落入專利權(quán)的保護(hù)范圍；被訴侵權(quán)設(shè)計(jì)缺少其一種使用狀態(tài)下的外觀設(shè)計(jì)或者與之不相同也不近似的，人民法院應(yīng)當(dāng)認(rèn)定被訴侵權(quán)設(shè)計(jì)未落入專利權(quán)的保護(hù)范圍。Article 17 As regards the design patent of a product in active variations, if an alleged infringing design is the same as or similar to the designs of all the various use states illustrated in the diagram of variations, the peo

41、ple's court shall determine that the alleged infringing design falls under the protection scope of the patent; if an alleged infringing design lacks the design of one of the various use states or neither same as nor similar to said design, the peoples court shall determine that the alleged infri

42、nging design falls under the protection scope of the patent.第十八條 權(quán)利人依據(jù)專利法第十三條訴請(qǐng)?jiān)诎l(fā)明專利申請(qǐng)公布日至授權(quán)公告日期間實(shí)施該發(fā)明的單位或者個(gè)人支付適當(dāng)費(fèi)用的，人民法院可以參照有關(guān)專利許可使用費(fèi)合理確定。Article 18 Where a right holder, based on Article 13 of the Patent Law, files a lawsuit to request an entity or individual to pay appropriate fees for implementi

43、ng the relevant invention during the period from the date of announcement of the invention patent application to the date of announcement of the grant of the invention patent, the people's court may refer to the license fee of the relevant patents to determine the amount of compensation.發(fā)明專利申請(qǐng)公布

44、時(shí)申請(qǐng)人請(qǐng)求保護(hù)的范圍與發(fā)明專利公告授權(quán)時(shí)的專利權(quán)保護(hù)范圍不一致，被訴技術(shù)方案均落入上述兩種范圍的，人民法院應(yīng)當(dāng)認(rèn)定被告在前款所稱期間內(nèi)實(shí)施了該發(fā)明；被訴技術(shù)方案僅落入其中一種范圍的，人民法院應(yīng)當(dāng)認(rèn)定被告在前款所稱期間內(nèi)未實(shí)施該發(fā)明。Where the scope of protection requested by the applicant upon the announcement of the patent application is inconsistent with the scope of patent protection upon the announcement of t

45、he grant of the invention patent, and an alleged infringing technical solution falls under both of the foregoing two protection scopes, the people's court shall find that the alleged infringer has implemented the relevant invention during the aforesaid period; and, where the alleged infringing t

46、echnical solution falls under only one of the two protection scopes, the people's court shall determine that the alleged infringer has not implemented the invention during the aforesaid period.   發(fā)明專利公告授權(quán)后，未經(jīng)專利權(quán)人許可，為生產(chǎn)經(jīng)營(yíng)目的使用、許諾銷售、銷售在本條第一款所稱期間內(nèi)已由他人制造、銷售、進(jìn)口的產(chǎn)品，且該他人已支付或者書(shū)面承諾支付專利法第十三條

47、規(guī)定的適當(dāng)費(fèi)用的，對(duì)于權(quán)利人關(guān)于上述使用、許諾銷售、銷售行為侵犯專利權(quán)的主張，人民法院不予支持。Where a perpetrator, without the licensing of the patentee, uses, offers to sell, or sells, products that are manufactured, sold or imported by other people during the period mentioned in paragraph 1 of this article, and said other people have already

48、paid or promised to pay in writing the appropriate fees under Article 13 of the Patent Law, the people's court shall not support the claim raised by the patentee that aforementioned activities of using, offering to sell or selling infringe the patent right.第十九條 產(chǎn)品買賣合同依法成立的，人民法院應(yīng)當(dāng)認(rèn)定屬于專利法第十一條規(guī)定的銷售

49、。Article 19 As long as a product sales contract is established by law, the people's court shall determine that sales as prescribed by Article 11 of the Patent Law have been constituted.第二十條 對(duì)于將依照專利方法直接獲得的產(chǎn)品進(jìn)一步加工、處理而獲得的后續(xù)產(chǎn)品，進(jìn)行再加工、處理的，人民法院應(yīng)當(dāng)認(rèn)定不屬于專利法第十一條規(guī)定的“使用依照該專利方法直接獲得的產(chǎn)品”。Article 20 Where a part

50、y re-processes or re-treats a follow-up product obtained from the further processing or treatment of a product directly obtained according to patented methods, the people's court shall determine that such re-processing or re-treatment does not belong to the circumstances of “the use of a product

51、 directly obtained according to patented methods” as prescribed under Article 11 of the Patent Law.第二十一條 明知有關(guān)產(chǎn)品系專門用于實(shí)施專利的材料、設(shè)備、零部件、中間物等，未經(jīng)專利權(quán)人許可，為生產(chǎn)經(jīng)營(yíng)目的將該產(chǎn)品提供給他人實(shí)施了侵犯專利權(quán)的行為，權(quán)利人主張?jiān)撎峁┱叩男袨閷儆谇謾?quán)責(zé)任法第九條規(guī)定的幫助他人實(shí)施侵權(quán)行為的，人民法院應(yīng)予支持。Article 21 Where a party has clear knowledge that certain products are the materi

52、als, equipment, parts and components, intermediates, etc. specifically for the implementation of an invention, and yet still provides, for production and business purposes, without the licensing of the relevant patentee, the products to others who infringed the patent right, the patentees claim that

53、 the suppliers act constitutes “assisting another person in committing a tort” under Article 9 of the Tort Law shall be supported by the peoples court.明知有關(guān)產(chǎn)品、方法被授予專利權(quán)，未經(jīng)專利權(quán)人許可，為生產(chǎn)經(jīng)營(yíng)目的積極誘導(dǎo)他人實(shí)施了侵犯專利權(quán)的行為，權(quán)利人主張?jiān)撜T導(dǎo)者的行為屬于侵權(quán)責(zé)任法第九條規(guī)定的教唆他人實(shí)施侵權(quán)行為的，人民法院應(yīng)予支持。Where a party has clear knowledge that certain produc

54、ts or methods are patented, for production and business purposes, without the licensing of the relevant patentee, actively induces infringers to infringe the patent right, the patentees claim that the inducers act constitutes “abetting another person in committing a tort” under Article 9 of the Tort

55、 Law shall be supported by the peoples court.第二十二條 對(duì)于被訴侵權(quán)人主張的現(xiàn)有技術(shù)抗辯或者現(xiàn)有設(shè)計(jì)抗辯，人民法院應(yīng)當(dāng)依照專利申請(qǐng)日時(shí)施行的專利法界定現(xiàn)有技術(shù)或者現(xiàn)有設(shè)計(jì)。Article 22 Where an alleged infringer raises a prior art defense or prior design defense, the people's court shall define the prior art or prior design pursuant to the Patent Law prevaili

56、ng on the date of the patent application.第二十三條 被訴侵權(quán)技術(shù)方案或者外觀設(shè)計(jì)落入在先的涉案專利權(quán)的保護(hù)范圍，被訴侵權(quán)人以其技術(shù)方案或者外觀設(shè)計(jì)被授予專利權(quán)為由抗辯不侵犯涉案專利權(quán)的，人民法院不予支持。Article 23 Where an alleged infringing technical solution or design falls within the protection scope of the prior patent right involved in the case, the people's court shal

57、l not support the alleged infringers defense that its technical solution or design has been granted patent and thus does not infringe the patent right involved in the case.第二十四條 推薦性國(guó)家、行業(yè)或者地方標(biāo)準(zhǔn)明示所涉必要專利的信息，被訴侵權(quán)人以實(shí)施該標(biāo)準(zhǔn)無(wú)需專利權(quán)人許可為由抗辯不侵犯該專利權(quán)的，人民法院一般不予支持。Article 24 Where recommended national, industrial or

58、local standards have expressly included the information of involved essential patents, the peoples court shall not support the alleged infringers non-infringing defense that the implementation of the standard does not require the patentees license.推薦性國(guó)家、行業(yè)或者地方標(biāo)準(zhǔn)明示所涉必要專利的信息，專利權(quán)人、被訴侵權(quán)人協(xié)商該專利的實(shí)施許可條件時(shí)，專利

59、權(quán)人故意違反其在標(biāo)準(zhǔn)制定中承諾的公平、合理、無(wú)歧視的許可義務(wù)，導(dǎo)致無(wú)法達(dá)成專利實(shí)施許可合同，且被訴侵權(quán)人在協(xié)商中無(wú)明顯過(guò)錯(cuò)的，對(duì)于權(quán)利人請(qǐng)求停止標(biāo)準(zhǔn)實(shí)施行為的主張，人民法院一般不予支持。Where recommended national, industrial or local standards have expressly included the information of involved essential patents, and during the negotiation of license terms of the patent between the patentee and the alleged infringer, if the patentee intentionally violates the fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory principle which leads to the failure of reaching a li