知识产权惩罚性赔偿主要是指侵权人故意侵犯知识产权权利人的合法权益并造成严重后果，由法院判决侵权人承担高于权利人实际损失数额的赔偿。知识产权领域引入惩罚性赔偿制度，不但能对权利人进行充分救济，而且可以对侵权人产生威慑作用，以解决日益猖獗的侵权问题。我国2013年修正的《商标法》第63条第1款规定，对恶意侵犯商标专用权，情节严重的，可以在按照上述方法确定数额的一倍以上三倍以下确定赔偿数额。此项规定标志着我国知识产权领域惩罚性赔偿制度的正式确立。国务院法制办公室公布的《著作权法》与《专利法》的修改草案，也增加了惩罚性赔偿的相关规定。对此，我国理论及实务界主要是从宏观的、原则性的角度研究惩罚性赔偿问题，并没有结合我国法院的相关判例进行实证分析，从而进行有的放矢的研究。本文在对知识产权惩罚性赔偿的概念、正当性以及功能等基本理论进行阐释的基础上，对英美法系及大陆法系国家相关制度进行比较研究，并结合相关案件分析该项制度在我国实践中存在的问题，为我国法院在司法实践中准确掌握适用原则与适用条件、合理确定赔偿数额等方面建言献策，以有效发挥惩罚性赔偿的作用。 第1章知识产权惩罚性赔偿制度的基本理论。主要对知识产权惩罚性赔偿的含义、历史脉络、正当性等基础理论进行分析论证。本章首先界定了知识产权惩罚性赔偿的定义，分析其核心特征。通过对惩罚性赔偿的历史沿革进行系统梳理，从中发现惩罚性赔偿制度已在多个国家和地区发挥重要作用。同时，本章还从法哲学及法经济学的角度对知识产权惩罚性赔偿的正当性进行阐释，对其在司法实践中发挥的功能进行分析。最后，对知识产权惩罚性赔偿与罚款、罚金制度的关系以及与精神损害赔偿的关系进行论述，以明确其相似之处及本质差异，并进行有效协调。 第2章域外知识产权惩罚性赔偿制度考察及启示。惩罚性赔偿是英美法系的特殊产物，在知识产权领域，美国在专利、商业秘密等知识产权立法中都有惩罚性赔偿的相关规定。该制度在美国应用较为广泛，虽然不乏质疑之声，但在美国司法实践中发挥了较大的作用。此外，我国台湾地区在知识产权领域多部法律中也明确规定了惩罚性赔偿。总体说来，美国是当今世界惩罚性赔偿制度立法最为完善、适用最为广泛的国家，而大陆法系国家在民事立法及司法实践中基本都对该制度持反对态度。我国在对国外相关制度予以借鉴时，要注意本土化的问题，不能仅仅是对域外法律条文的照搬照抄，而要对条文背后的法律理念进行深入研究，使其更加适应我国具体国情，从而有效发挥其制度价值。 第3章我国知识产权惩罚性赔偿制度的发展及评析。我国于1993年颁布的《消费者权益保护法》首次规定了惩罚性赔偿。此后，我国多部法律引入了惩罚性赔偿制度。在《商标法》明确规定惩罚性赔偿责任之前，我国在知识产权相关领域并未确立惩罚性赔偿规则，许可费倍数的规定及法定赔偿均为补充性赔偿。在我国，应否在知识产权法中引入惩罚性赔偿制度虽然有不同的声音，但从笔者搜集到的资料来看，主流观点认为我国应当建立该制度，最终新《商标法》对惩罚性赔偿制度予以谨慎接受。根据知识产权保护难的特点及我国知识产权侵权形势较为严峻的现状，我国知识产权领域引入该制度具有较强的现实意义。本章还对近年来我国知识产权惩罚性赔偿的相关案件进行梳理，指出我国司法实践中存在的问题，并对产生问题的原因从多角度进行分析。 第4章知识产权惩罚性赔偿的适用原则及适用条件。为防止知识产权惩罚性赔偿滥用，司法实践中应当遵循以下原则：一是法定原则，即适用范围、适用条件与适用方式必须严格按照法律规定；二是比例原则，即法院在判决侵权人应承担的惩罚性赔偿数额时，应与侵权人的主观恶性和侵权行为的严重程度成比例；三是禁止重复处罚原则，即如果对侵权行为人已经处以罚款或罚金，法院在判决时应当将这一情形纳入考虑。同时，适用惩罚性赔偿还应符合以下条件：惩罚性赔偿的主观过错应限定为故意或恶意；侵权行为情节严重，主要包括侵权行为性质恶劣和侵权行为造成的损害后果严重；惩罚性赔偿需要由当事人自行提出，法院不得主动适用。 第5章知识产权惩罚性赔偿数额的确定。适用惩罚性赔偿时，应以已经证明的权利人损失、侵权人获利或合理许可使用费为基数，法定赔偿不能作为基数。在确定倍数时，要考虑侵权人的主观恶性、侵权后果的严重程度、侵权人是否采取补救措施、侵权人在诉讼中的表现等因素加以综合确定。因为惩罚性赔偿需要以补偿性赔偿为基数，现有的诉讼程序如果无法正确认定“损害”的话，惩罚性赔偿也无从谈起。实践中，确定知识产权惩罚性赔偿数额存在以下困难：一是知识产权客体的无形性导致实际损失和侵权获利难以确定，二是知识产权侵权行为隐蔽性导致权利人难以举证。对此，可通过合理适用举证妨碍等证据规则和充分发挥鉴定制度的作用，来解决惩罚性赔偿的适用难题。

Punitive damages for intellectual property infringement mainly refer to the damages in which the infringer deliberately infringes the legal right of intellectual property rights’ owner and causes serious consequences and hence the judge holds a compensation higher than the actual loss of intellectual property rights’ owner. The system of punitive damages for intellectual property infringement not only provides adequate relief to intellectual property rights’ owner, but also creates deterrence on infringers and solves the ever-increasing problem of infringement. According to Article 63 of the Trademark Law revised in 2013, if the circumstances of a malicious invasion of the right to exclusive use of a trademark are serious, the amount of compensation may be determined one to three times of the determined amount in accordance with the above law. The system of punitive damages in the field of intellectual property was formally established. The draft amendments of the Copyright Law and the Patent Law were promulgated by Legal Affairs Office of the State Council, which include punitive damages provisions. In this regard, the theorists and practice experts of China mainly study the issue of punitive damages from a macroscopic and principled perspective, and have not conducted empirical analysis in conjunction with the relevant jurisprudence of the Chinese courts, thus the targeted research cannot be achieved. Based on the explanations of the basic theories of punitive damages, the legitimacy and functions of intellectual property rights, this study conducts a comparative research of the relevant systems in the common law and civil law countries, and analyzes the system in conjunction with relevant cases in practice in China. The purpose of this article is to assist the courts to grasp the principles of punitive compensation, the prerequisite of application and to determine the amount of compensation reasonably. The first chapter is the basic theory of the system of punitive damages for intellectual property infringement. It mainly analyzes the basic theory of the meaning, historical context, and legitimacy of punitive damages for intellectual property infringement. This chapter firstly formulates the definition of punitive damages for intellectual property infringement and analyzes its core characteristics. Through a systematic review of the historical evolution of punitive damages, it was discovered that the punitive damages system has played an important role in many countries and regions. At the same time, this chapter also explains the legitimacy of punitive damages of intellectual property rights from the perspective of legal philosophy and law and economics, and analyzes the functions it plays in judicial practices. Finally, it discusses the relationship between punitive damages for intellectual property infringement, fines system and the relationship with mental damages, to clarify their similarities and essential differences as well as having an effective coordination. The second chapter examines the overseas system of punitive damages for intellectual property infringement and explains the related discoveries. Punitive damages were initially raised by the common law system. In the field of intellectual property, the United States has punitive damages in copyright, patents, trademarks, trade secrets and other intellectual property legislation. The system is widely used in the United States. Although there are arguments, the system does play an important role in the judicial practice in the United States. In addition, punitive damages have been stipulated in many laws in the intellectual property field in Taiwan. In general, nowadays, the United States has the most developed and widely applicable punitive damages system in the world, and civil law countries have opposed the system in both civil legislation and judicial practice. In terms of drawing lessons from foreign systems, China should pay attention to the issue of localization. China should not merely copy the legal provisions of the foreign countries, but should make further research of the legal concepts behind the articles, try to make them more adaptable to China’s specific national conditions and play institutional value effectively. The third chapter analyses the situation of punitive damages system for intellectual property infringement in China. In 1993, the Consumer Protection Law was promulgated in China, providing the first punitive damages policy. Since then, in China, many laws provided punitive liability. Before the Trademark Law clearly stipulated punitive liability, China had not established a punitive damages rule in the relevant fields of intellectual property rights. The provisions of the multiple of licensing fees and statutory compensation are both supplementary compensation. In China, there are different opinions about whether punitive damages system should be introduced into the Intellectual Property Law. However, according to the information collected, the mainstream view is that China should establish this system, and eventually the new trademark law takes the punitive compensation system cautiously. According to the characteristics of difficulties in protections of intellectual property rights and the severe situation of China's intellectual property rights infringement, the introduction of this system in the field of intellectual property in China has a strong practical significance. In the end, this chapter sorts out relevant cases of punitive damages in China in recent years, points out the problems in judicial practice of China, and analyzes the causes of these problems from multiple perspectives. The fourth chapter points out the applicable principles and applicable conditions of punitive damages for intellectual property infringement. In order to prevent the abuse of punitive damages for intellectual property infringement, the following principles should be followed in judicial practice: Firstly, the legal principle, the scope of application, application conditions, and application methods must be strictly in accordance with the law. Secondly, the principle of proportionality: when the court decides the amount of punitive damages that the infringer should bear, it should be proportional to the seriousness of the infringement and the seriousness of the infringement. Thirdly, the principle of repeated punishment is prohibited. If the infringer has been fined, the court should take this situation into consideration. At the same time, the application of punitive damages should also conform to the following conditions: subjective fault of punitive damages should be limited to intentional or malicious; the seriousness of infringements, including the nature of infringement and the serious consequences of damage caused by infringement; the court should not determine the punitive damages without requests . The fifth chapter discusses the issue of determination of the amount of punitive damages for intellectual property infringement. When punitive damages are applied, the loss of the right holder, the profit of the infringer or a reasonable license fee should be taken as the baseline. The statutory compensation should not be used as a baseline. To confirm the multiple times being comprehensively determined, it is necessary to consider the infringer's subjective viciousness, the severity of the consequences of infringement, whether the infringer took remedial measures, the infringer's performance in the proceedings and other factors. Because punitive damages need to be based on compensatory damages, if the current litigation procedures cannot correctly identify “damage”, punitive damages cannot be discussed. In practice, confirming the amount of punitive damages for intellectual property rights has the following difficulties: Firstly, the intangible nature of intellectual property rights causes actual losses and leads infringement profits to be difficult to determine. Secondly, the hidden nature of intellectual property infringements leads to difficulties in providing evidence from right holders. In this regard, we can solve the punitive damage difficulties by applying rules of evidence, such as providing evidence of obstruction as well as giving full play to the role of the appraisal system.