CAJ | 학술논문

根据“美国规则”，诉讼中一般是由双方各自承担律师费用，虽然美国《专利法》第285条特别规定，专利案件中的败诉方承担胜诉方律师费，但仅适用于“例外情况”。实践中，美国联邦法院对“例外情况”又设定了一定的门槛，导致该条的实际适用非常有限。美国新近的专利法改革措施之一是改变诉讼律师费用的承担规则，就在各方对此方案争论不休之时，美国的司法实践做出了积极回应，联邦最高法院在近期的两个案件中进一步明确第285条的适用条件，尝试让轻率发动专利侵权诉讼的原告在败诉时承担胜诉方律师费用，以引导专利权人慎重提起专利侵权诉讼。有必要介绍和分析美国联邦最高法院新近判决，结合中国实际，加以借鉴。
근거“미국규칙”，소송중일반시유쌍방각자승담률사비용，수연미국《전리법》제285조특별규정，전리안건중적패소방승담성소방률사비，단부괄용우“예외정황”。실천중，미국련방법원대“예외정황”우설정료일정적문함，도치해조적실제괄용비상유한。미국신근적전리법개혁조시지일시개변소송률사비용적승담규칙，취재각방대차방안쟁론불휴지시，미국적사법실천주출료적겁회응，련방최고법원재근기적량개안건중진일보명학제285조적괄용조건，상시양경솔발동전리침권소송적원고재패소시승담성소방률사비용，이인도전리권인신중제기전리침권소송。유필요개소화분석미국련방최고법원신근판결，결합중국실제，가이차감。
It is the general rule in the USA that the parties in legal proceeding should undertake their attorney fee respectively, although the losing party should undertake the attorney fee of the winning party in patent lawsuit under art. 285 US Patent Law, which only applies “exceptional cases”. In practice, the US Federal Court has established barriers to the exceptional cases and therefore the its application is quite rare. Recently, the US Patent Law changed the allocation rule of attorney fee, which caused to controversy on this proposal. And the US Federal Court made a further statement on the application requirements of art. 285 in two cases recently, trying to impose the obligation to undertake the attorney fee of the other party on the prosecutor who brought patent infringement actions before the court irresponsibly. It is necessary to introduce the two recent cases at the Supreme Court of U.S. and to draw lessons from them in combination with China's practices.