专利技术被策定为标准必要专利后,如专利权人仍可肆意行使其排他权利会阻碍标准的实施。专利权人作出FRAND承诺,这意味着专利权人排他权利的行使会受到限制。但是,由于FRAND承诺的效力不及于未参与标准制定过程中的第三人,由此可能导致...专利技术被策定为标准必要专利后,如专利权人仍可肆意行使其排他权利会阻碍标准的实施。专利权人作出FRAND承诺,这意味着专利权人排他权利的行使会受到限制。但是,由于FRAND承诺的效力不及于未参与标准制定过程中的第三人,由此可能导致专利劫持问题。适当的损害赔偿额是解决专利劫持问题的根本路径之一。日本"Apple Japan vs.Samsung"案中损害赔偿额的计算前提是损害赔偿额等于专利许可费,具体计算符合FRAND承诺的专利许可费时,为防止专利许可费堆叠问题,使用了"设定峰值法"。展开更多
In this article,two cases of Standard Essential Patents,ruled by the Supreme People's Court of the People's Republic of China,are presented and analyzed.The first Chinese anti-suit injunction in SEP litigation...In this article,two cases of Standard Essential Patents,ruled by the Supreme People's Court of the People's Republic of China,are presented and analyzed.The first Chinese anti-suit injunction in SEP litigation appeared in the first case through the method of behavior preservation,and the second case illustrates a clear intent by the Chinese courts to compete for global royalty rate jurisdiction.With international concerns raised about these cases,it is proved that the anti-suit injunction cases in China do not show any abusive or illegal conduct.The worldwide anti-suit injunctions in China are granted legitimately with legal jurisdiction over the cases,sufficient legal grounds for behavior preservation with the nature of anti-suit injunctions,the necessity of granting worldwide injunctions,and suitable granting standards.Several pieces of advice are proposed for the future application of anti-suit injunctions,including improvements in the predictability of validity scope,consistency of implementation,and clarification of penalties.展开更多
随着第四次工业革命的兴起,将涌现越来越多的新标准和标准必要专利,这使得标准必要专利公平合理无歧视(fair,reasonable and non-discriminatory,FRAND)许可的问题变得更为复杂。值得探讨的是,作为标准的接受者而非制定者的主要亚洲经...随着第四次工业革命的兴起,将涌现越来越多的新标准和标准必要专利,这使得标准必要专利公平合理无歧视(fair,reasonable and non-discriminatory,FRAND)许可的问题变得更为复杂。值得探讨的是,作为标准的接受者而非制定者的主要亚洲经济体的FRAND许可标准有无趋于一致或歧异之处?一些跨国经营、从事专利许可的企业集团对中国竞争法主管机关所作的承诺可否延伸至亚洲之外具有约束力?如何消解不同法律标准之间的冲突?基于以下的原因,主张至少在亚洲地区须确立对标准必要专利的FRAND许可的事前监管机制:已经有巨大的市场失灵、标准必要专利相当于垄断或联合垄断、事实标准超越法律标准、私主体的标准制订组织取代国家职能;并提出专利法和竞争法的改革建议,主张不同法律标准的冲突不应通过一套标准来解决,应经由同理心思考和国家间对各自选择的相互尊重来解决;最后以破除知识产权法与竞争法交叉领域中一些似是而非的论述作结。展开更多
文摘专利技术被策定为标准必要专利后,如专利权人仍可肆意行使其排他权利会阻碍标准的实施。专利权人作出FRAND承诺,这意味着专利权人排他权利的行使会受到限制。但是,由于FRAND承诺的效力不及于未参与标准制定过程中的第三人,由此可能导致专利劫持问题。适当的损害赔偿额是解决专利劫持问题的根本路径之一。日本"Apple Japan vs.Samsung"案中损害赔偿额的计算前提是损害赔偿额等于专利许可费,具体计算符合FRAND承诺的专利许可费时,为防止专利许可费堆叠问题,使用了"设定峰值法"。
基金supported by 2022 Key Project of Hunan Provincial Department of Education Scientific Research:"Conflicts and Resolution between Anti-Suit Injunctions and Anti-Anti-Suit Injunctions in International SEPs"(22A0079)。
文摘In this article,two cases of Standard Essential Patents,ruled by the Supreme People's Court of the People's Republic of China,are presented and analyzed.The first Chinese anti-suit injunction in SEP litigation appeared in the first case through the method of behavior preservation,and the second case illustrates a clear intent by the Chinese courts to compete for global royalty rate jurisdiction.With international concerns raised about these cases,it is proved that the anti-suit injunction cases in China do not show any abusive or illegal conduct.The worldwide anti-suit injunctions in China are granted legitimately with legal jurisdiction over the cases,sufficient legal grounds for behavior preservation with the nature of anti-suit injunctions,the necessity of granting worldwide injunctions,and suitable granting standards.Several pieces of advice are proposed for the future application of anti-suit injunctions,including improvements in the predictability of validity scope,consistency of implementation,and clarification of penalties.
文摘随着第四次工业革命的兴起,将涌现越来越多的新标准和标准必要专利,这使得标准必要专利公平合理无歧视(fair,reasonable and non-discriminatory,FRAND)许可的问题变得更为复杂。值得探讨的是,作为标准的接受者而非制定者的主要亚洲经济体的FRAND许可标准有无趋于一致或歧异之处?一些跨国经营、从事专利许可的企业集团对中国竞争法主管机关所作的承诺可否延伸至亚洲之外具有约束力?如何消解不同法律标准之间的冲突?基于以下的原因,主张至少在亚洲地区须确立对标准必要专利的FRAND许可的事前监管机制:已经有巨大的市场失灵、标准必要专利相当于垄断或联合垄断、事实标准超越法律标准、私主体的标准制订组织取代国家职能;并提出专利法和竞争法的改革建议,主张不同法律标准的冲突不应通过一套标准来解决,应经由同理心思考和国家间对各自选择的相互尊重来解决;最后以破除知识产权法与竞争法交叉领域中一些似是而非的论述作结。
