以飞利浦CD-R专利池案的最终裁决以及美国司法部和联邦贸易委员会联合发布的《反垄断执法与知识产权:促进创新与竞争》报告为标志,美国针对专利池的反垄断政策近年来开始由相对宽松变得更为宽容,甚至走向纵容,不仅摒弃了国际公认的"公平、合理、非歧视"的专利许可原则,对专利费率不再加以限制,而且允许专利池进行强制性一揽子许可,在专利池反垄断审查中仅采"合理原则"而排除适用"当然违法原则"。此外,美国对于专利池中非必要专利的认定标准也发生了变化。受此影响,作为国际专利池的主要许可对象,我国企业将更难抵御专利池的专利费盘剥和强制性一揽子许可,在美国发起专利池反垄断诉讼的难度将进一步增大。这一影响在我国无锡多媒体诉DVD3C专利池一案在美国屡遭驳回的裁决结果中已初现端倪,我国加快建立和完善符合本国利益的专利池反垄断制度显得更为紧迫。
Abstract
In recent years, the antitrust policy on patent pool of the United States is becoming looser ever than before, when the policy has become more tolerant since 1995. The United States not only abandon the internationally recognized principle of "fair, reasonable, and nondiscriminatory" (FRAND), and impose no restrictions on licensing royalty rates of patent pool, but also agree compulsory package licensing and only apply "rule of reason" and exclude "per se rule" in the antitrust review of patent pools. In addition, the U.S. courts have changed the identification rule of "non-essential patent" in the pool. Affected by above sitution, as the major international patent pool licensees, Chinese enterprises will be more difficult to resist the patent pool royalty exploitation and compulsory package licensing. The difficulty for filing an antitrust lawsuit in U.S. will also be increase. The impacts could be found from the case of Wuxi Multimedia versus DVD3C patent pool in June 2008. Therefore, the establishment of China's antitrust system against patent pool needs to be accelerated in behalf of national interest.
关键词
专利池 /
美国反垄断政策 /
发展 /
影响
Key words
patent pool /
U.S. antitrust policy /
development /
impact
{{custom_sec.title}}
{{custom_sec.title}}
{{custom_sec.content}}
参考文献
[1] FTC. Antitrust Enforcement and Intellectual Property Rights: Promoting Innovation and Competition.http://www.ftc.gov/reports/innovation/P040101PromotingInnovationandCompetitionrpt0704.pdf ,2010年10月15日最后访问.
[2] USDOJ&FTC. Antitrust Guidelines for the Licensing of Intellectual Property.http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/public/guidelines/0558.htm ,2010年10月15日最后访问.
[3] Shapiro, C.. Navigating the Patent Thicket: Cross Licenses, Patent Pools, and Standard Setting[J], Innovation Policy and the Economy, 2000(1): 119-150.
[4] Gilbert, R. J.. Antitrust for Patent Pools: A Century of Policy Evolution . working paper, 2002, at http://www.law.berkeley.edu/institutes/bclt/stemcell/articles/gilbert_patent_pools.pdf. 2010年10月2日最后访问.
[5] Lerner, J., Tirole, J.. Public Policy toward Patent Pools[J]. Innovation Policy and the Economy, 2007(8):157-186.
[6] Choi, J.. Patent Pools and Cross-Licensing in the Shadow of Patent Litigation[J]. International Economic Review, 2010(2):441-460.
[7] 李玉剑,宣国良.专利联盟反垄断规制的比较研究[J].知识产权,2004(5):52-55.
[8] 张平,马骁.标准化与知识产权战略(第二版)[M],北京:知识产权出版社,2005.
[9] 张波.专利联营反垄断分析的若干要点[J] .电子知识产权,2008(11):11-19.
[10] Lerner, J., Strojwas, M. & Tirole, J. The Design of Patent Pools: The Determinants of Licensing Rules . (National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper No. 9680), 2004,2010年10月2日最后访问.
[11] Brenner, S.. Optimal Formation Rules for Patent Pools, working paper,2005, http://www2.wiwi.hu-berlin.de/institute/im/publikdl/JEMS.2005-03-21.brenner.pdf ,2010年10月2日最后访问.
[12] Bekkers, R., Iversen, E. and Blind, K.. Patent Pools and Non-Assertion Agreements: Coordination Mechanisms for Multi-Party IPR Holders in Standardization , Paper for the EASST 2006 Conference, August 2006.
[13] 郭雯,乔东峰.DVD专利技术现状及其发展趋势.各行业专利技术现状及其发展趋势报告[M]. 北京:科学出版社,2005.
[14] 黄铭杰.专利集管(patent pool)与公平交易法[J].月旦法学,2002(8):122-148.
[15] United States District Court For The Southern District Of California. 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9160; 2006-1 Trade Cas. (CCH). https://www.lexis.com , 2010年10月2日最后访问.
基金
司法部国家法治与法学理论研究项目"我国知识产权合理保护水平的实证研究—定量测度、理想水平与现实选择", (09SFB3024),2009.12-2011.6; 教育部人文社科项目"我国规制专利池知识产权滥用的制度构建研究"(09YJC820120), 2009.9-2012.12。
PDF(888 KB)
