本文从最高人民法院审理的石家庄双环汽车股份有限公司与本田技研工业株式会社的确认不侵犯专利权、损害赔偿纠纷案出发,提出专利侵权警告信的基本属性是一种专利侵权的自力救济方式,专利侵权警告信的根本性质是意思表示。专利侵权警告信与通知函等的根本区别就在于,是否具有通过自力救济方式制止侵权的明确表示。判断是否具有通过自力救济方式制止侵权的明确表示的核心,在于是否具有使得发送对象了解和知道其行为构成侵权的事实的效果意思。专利侵权警告信的适用情形主要是,在合法来源抗辩制度中证明专利侵权产品的使用者、许诺销售者或者销售者不知道其所使用、许诺销售或者销售的是未经专利权人许可而制造并售出的专利侵权产品,在专利侵权惩罚性赔偿制度中证明被控侵权人因为知道其行为构成侵权从而形成故意侵权或者恶意侵权等。适格的专利侵权警告信关键在于,具有明确的使得发送对象了解和知道其行为构成侵权的事实的效果意思。适格的专利侵权警告信的构成要件包括:发出者所享有的权利、涉嫌侵权人的侵权行为、对涉嫌侵权人的主张。基于这一构成要件要求,解释最高人民法院在石家庄双环汽车股份有限公司与本田技研工业株式会社的确认不侵犯专利权、损害赔偿纠纷案中针对不同警告信作出的不同效力认定。 Based on the case of Shijiazhuang Shuanghuan Automobile Co., Ltd. and Honda Giken Industries Co., Ltd. that the Supreme People’s Court tried to confirm non-infringement of patent right and damages, this paper proposes that the basic property of the patent infringement warning letter is a self-help remedy of patent infringement. The fundamental nature of a patent infringement warning letter is that of meaning. The fundamental difference between a patent infringement warning letter and a notification letter is whether or not there is a clear indication that the infringement should be stopped by self-help relief. The core of judging whether there is an explicit expression of stopping infringement by means of self-help is whether it has the effect meaning that the transmitting object knows and knows the infringement of its actions. The patent infringement warning letter is mainly applicable in cases where the user of the patent infringing product is proven in a lawful defenses to promise that the seller or seller is unaware of the use, promise to sell or sell that is made without the permission of the patentee And sold the patent infringing products in the patent infringement punitive damages system to prove that the accused infringer because of their behavior constitute infringement to form intentional infringement or malicious infringement. The key to a proper patent infringement warning letter is to have a clear sense of what the sending party knows and knows about the fact that its actions constitute infringement. The constitutional elements of a proper patent infringement warning letter include: the rights of the sender, the infringement of the alleged infringer, and the claim of the alleged infringer. Based on the requirements of this component, the Supreme People’s Court explained the different validity of the Supreme People’s Court against different warning letters in the case of confirmation of non-infringement of patent right and damage compensation contract between Shijiazhuang Shuanghuan Automobile Co., Ltd. and Honda Motor Co., Ltd.