摘要
专利开放许可费认定机制具有法定性与意定性相结合的特点,并且遵循“意定优先、法定保障”的原则。专利开放许可费影响因素的确定存在“双重单向”自愿性。在专利开放许可费认定机制的法经济学分析方面,应当构建专利开放许可费价格竞争机制、合理保障专利权人开放许可费收益,以及克服专利开放许可费认定中的交易成本问题。在专利开放许可费纠纷解决机制方面,应当建立司法主导、行政为辅的机制,积极适用举证妨碍规则,扩张证据来源,并注重与专利自愿许可、专利强制许可机制的衔接。在专利开放许可费认定特殊规则方面,应当根据适用领域调整专利开放许可费率,对特定技术领域专利开放许可费实行差别化定价,适当提高专利侵权行为人应当支付的专利开放许可费,解决专利开放许可费认定与公平合理非歧视原则的协调问题,并限制专利开放许可中的延展性许可费。
The determination mechanism of patent open license royalties has the characteristic of statutory and autonomy combination,and follows the principle of"autonomy as priority,statutory baseline".The influencing factors of patent open license royalties are determined by the"double unidirectional"autonomy.From the perspective of law and economics of the determination mechanism of patent open license royalties,we should build the price competition mechanism for patent open license royalties,provide reasonable protection to the patentee's revenue,and handle the problem of transaction cost when determining such royalties.In regard to the dispute resolution on this issue,we should establish a judicial-led,administratively supplemented mechanism,actively apply the rule of the determination of evidence obstruction,expand the sources of evidence,and pay attention to the interface with voluntary patent license and compulsory patent license mechanisms.For the special rules of the determination of patent open license royalties,we should adjust such royalties according to the fields applied to,implement differential pricing for royalties in specific technical fields,appropriately increase the royalties that should be paid by patent infringers,solve the coordination problem between the determination of patent open license royalties and the Fair Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory principle,and limit the reach-through royalties in patent open license.
出处
《知识产权》
CSSCI
北大核心
2021年第7期3-23,共21页
Intellectual Property
基金
司法部国家法治与法学理论研究项目“民法典知识产权条款立法研究”(19SFB5012)。
关键词
专利开放许可
许可费
法定性
意定性
交易成本
纠纷解决
举证责任
patent open license
license royalties
statutory
autonomy
transaction cost
dispute resolution
burden of proof