Research On Punitive Compensation System Of Intellectual Property From The Perspective Of Linking Public And Private Law

In the case of intellectual property infringement,there is no unified standard on how to coordinate the relationship between punitive damages and administrative fines or even criminal fines.When the two rules are combined,there may be a hidden danger of two penalties for one case,so there are two contradictory modes of "compatible treatment" and"incompatible treatment".For example,in the A Di case,Chongqing court took the non bis in idem as the theoretical basis and believed that after the defendant had been judged to bear criminal fines or administrative fines,if the defendant was also sentenced to bear punitive damages,it would undoubtedly lead to excessive punishment.For another example,in the Ke Pai case,Guangzhou Intellectual Property Court held that punitive damages and public law punitive measures could be applied simultaneously due to the different nature of liability,and criminal penalties and administrative penalties could also become one of the factors for the court to judge the establishment of punitive damages requirements.Therefore,this paper will analyze the reasons behind this mess,and try to answer the difficult question of how to coordinate the relationship between punitive damages and public law measures from the academic level by referring to the foreign legislative experience.Based on the experience of the comparative law,this paper first analyzes the functions of the punitive damages system of intellectual property rights.On the basis of the functional comparison,it determines whether the two systems have functional homogeneity,and then decides how to deal with the connection between the punitive damages system and the disciplinary provisions of public law.Based on the demonstration from the experience of comparative method,the cohesion path of our two responsibilities is rebuilt as follows:When the functions of the two disciplinary systems are completely the same,that is,the content of punishment is completely the same,the experience of comparative law believes that the two systems should be avoided to be applied simultaneously,so as to avoid two penalties for one incident.+For example,in the Halper case,the court demonstrated the legitimacy of common application by citing the fields where the two belong to different department laws.It can be inferred that when the two belong to the contents of department laws with the same functions.That is,it does not have the legitimacy of common application.When the functions of the two systems are completely different,that is,the content of punishment is completely different,the experience of comparative law holds that the two systems can be applied superimposed.For example,in Huntington v.Attrill case,Judge Shaw and Thomas B.Colby justified the common application of the two systems by demonstrating that the purpose and object of punishment were completely different.