Both the Patent Law and the Anti-Unfair Competition Law have the purpose and function of legislation that encourages innovation and maintains the order of the normal market economy.Although the adjustment range of the latter than the former is more extensive, but often there are two law articles phenomenon closely to one of the two sides of patent infringement and often acts of unfair competition, the practice is very difficult to completely separate the necessary, but in many cases there is no fine distinction.For the two designs can constitute a similar method of judging and standards, the two laws did not make a clear provision, there is no comparison of law and isolation than the different provisions of the law.

    From the rules of evidence in civil litigation and the referee's point of view, the case verdicts and other administrative judgments exist obvious conflict.The judgment of the judgment refers to the binding force of the effective judgment against the parties and the court.In the case of an effective judgment in the court, no judge after that will be able to contradict the content of the judgment.Whether the two patents constitute a similar problem, the court in the previous effective administrative decision to confirm does not constitute a similar, which for the parties and the Court of Appeal should be binding.

    In the patent law and anti unfair competition law and the law of patent administrative examination and civil procedure, method and standard of implementation of two sets of judgment in the application process, this is not conducive to encouraging innovation and maintain the normal order of market economy.A patent that is legally obtained and validated by an administrative litigation, but in a different review system that follows the conclusion that it can not be used normally in the market economy and bear the responsibility for infringement, This is far beyond the scope of the behavior of the perpetrator for the nature of their own judgments, detrimental to the market for the legal and national rights of the legitimate trust, making the legal guidance and expected evaluation function alienated.