标准必要专利禁令救济规则的国际新进展及启示
|
摘要
标准必要专利的双重属性使得其许可与禁令救济问题一直备受各国关注。有关标准必要专利禁令救济的适用和抗辩规则也在各方利益平衡中不断得到修正。在回顾梳理美国和欧盟标准必要专利禁令规则历史演变的基础上,着重分析欧美近期在禁令救济政策上的立场转变及发展趋势,继而结合我国立法及司法实践启示,提出尽快完善禁令救济规则,禁令滥用规制,以及构建包括禁止令、禁诉令和禁执令等在内的禁令制度体系的建议。
The dual attributes of the standard-essential patent( SEP) has made the issue of license and injunctive relief a long-standing focus of many countries. The grant and defense rules of the SEP's injunctive relief have been adjusted constantly in order to balance the interests of all parties concerned. Based on a brief review of the historical evolution of the judicial rules in the United States and the European Union,this paper emphasizes on the analysis of the transitions and recent trends,and suggests that China should improve its rules of SEP injunction relief and abuse as soon as possible and construct a comprehensive injunction system which includes the anti-suit injunction,counter-injunction and so on.
The dual attributes of the standard-essential patent( SEP) has made the issue of license and injunctive relief a long-standing focus of many countries. The grant and defense rules of the SEP's injunctive relief have been adjusted constantly in order to balance the interests of all parties concerned. Based on a brief review of the historical evolution of the judicial rules in the United States and the European Union,this paper emphasizes on the analysis of the transitions and recent trends,and suggests that China should improve its rules of SEP injunction relief and abuse as soon as possible and construct a comprehensive injunction system which includes the anti-suit injunction,counter-injunction and so on.
引文
[1]The U.S. Department of Justice and U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. Policy statement on remedies for standards-essential patents subject to voluntary FRAND commitments[EB/OL].[2013-01-08].https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/atr/legacy/2014/09/18/290994.pdf.
[2]王晓晔.标准必要专利反垄断诉讼问题研究[J].中国法学,2015(6):217-238.
[3]MOTION for leave to file brief of amicus curiae Intel corporation in support of the FTC’s opposition to qualcomm’s motion to dismiss filed by intel corporation[EB/OL].[2018-06-08].https://www. docketbird. com/court-cases/Federal-Trade-Commission-vQualcomm-Incorporated/cand-5:2017-cv-00220.
[4]魏立舟.标准必要专利情形下禁令救济的反垄断法规制——从“橘皮书标准”到“华为诉中兴”[J].环球法律评论,2015(6):83-101.
[5]赵启彬.论标准必要专利侵权案件停止侵权抗辩规则的构建——并论德国标准必要专利停止侵权抗辩规则之新发展[J].中国专利与商标,2017(2):68-84.
[6]尹雪萍.标准必要专利禁令之诉的竞争法边界——以欧盟2015年华为诉中兴案为视角[J].东岳论丛,2016(4):173-179.
[7]PICHT PG. Unwired planet v. huawei:a seminal SEP/FRAND decision from the UK[J].Journal of intellectual property law and practice,2017,12(10):867-880.
[8]Setting out the EU approach to standard essential patents[EB/OL].[2018-03-27]. https://ec. europa. eu/docsroom/documents/26583.
[9]倪朱亮,申楠,胡毅.标准必要专利实施许可条件的裁判思路研究[J].知识产权,2016(12):26-31.
[10]毕春丽.司法解释第24条有关标准专利停止侵权的内涵和外延的思考[J].中国知识产权,2016(12):64-66.
[11]刘婧.统一细化专利侵权裁判标准,营造有利于创新的法治环境——最高人民法院民三庭负责人就专利法司法解释(二)答记者问[N].人民法院报,2016-03-23(2).
[12]徐新宇.标准必要专利许可行为的反垄断规制思考[J].中国价格监管与反垄断,2017(3):16-19.
[13]仲春.专利国际诉讼中反禁令的司法应对[J].知识产权,2018(4):88-96.
(1)eBay Inc.v.MercE xchange,L.L.C.,547 U.S.388,391(2006).
(1)Apple,Inc.v.Motorola,Inc.,869 F.Supp.2d 901,913-914(N.D.Ill.2012).
(2)FTC曾持类似观点,认为FRAND承诺是拒绝颁布禁令、给予许可费不会造成不可挽回损失的强有力证据。Federal Trade Commission,The Evolving IP Market Place:Aligning Patent Notice and Remedies with Competition(2011),March 2011,235.
(3)这是自1987年美国前总统里根以来,历任总统首次行使否决权驳回ITC的判决,并由美国贸易代表办公室(USTR)执行发布,参见http://www.ustr.gov/sites/default/files/08032013%20Letter_1.PDF,2018年4月3日。
(4)该演讲被美国专利商标局前局长David Kappos评价为“司法部在我数十年的法律实践中最重要的反垄断讲话”。演讲内容参见https://www.justice.gov/opa/speech/assistant-attorney-general-makan-delrahim-delivers-remarks-usc-gould-school-laws-center,2018年3月8日。
(5)演讲内容参见https://www.justice.gov/opa/speech/principal-deputy-assistant-attorney-general-andrew-c-finch-delivers-remarks-heritage,2018年3月8日。
(1)美国司法部反垄断部门对电气与电子工程师学会(IEEE)专利政策修正案的商业审查函内容,参见美国司法部官网:https://www.justice.gov/atr/response-institute-electrical-and-electronics-engineers-incorporated,2018年4月8日。
(2)在不能适时地获得公权救济,且不能立即行使自力救济就会导致请求权落空或者极难行使的情况下,为实现自己请求权目的而取走、破坏或毁损物品,或者扣留有逃跑嫌疑的义务人或者去除义务人对某一行为的抵抗等,皆不被认为构成不法行为。
[2]王晓晔.标准必要专利反垄断诉讼问题研究[J].中国法学,2015(6):217-238.
[3]MOTION for leave to file brief of amicus curiae Intel corporation in support of the FTC’s opposition to qualcomm’s motion to dismiss filed by intel corporation[EB/OL].[2018-06-08].https://www. docketbird. com/court-cases/Federal-Trade-Commission-vQualcomm-Incorporated/cand-5:2017-cv-00220.
[4]魏立舟.标准必要专利情形下禁令救济的反垄断法规制——从“橘皮书标准”到“华为诉中兴”[J].环球法律评论,2015(6):83-101.
[5]赵启彬.论标准必要专利侵权案件停止侵权抗辩规则的构建——并论德国标准必要专利停止侵权抗辩规则之新发展[J].中国专利与商标,2017(2):68-84.
[6]尹雪萍.标准必要专利禁令之诉的竞争法边界——以欧盟2015年华为诉中兴案为视角[J].东岳论丛,2016(4):173-179.
[7]PICHT PG. Unwired planet v. huawei:a seminal SEP/FRAND decision from the UK[J].Journal of intellectual property law and practice,2017,12(10):867-880.
[8]Setting out the EU approach to standard essential patents[EB/OL].[2018-03-27]. https://ec. europa. eu/docsroom/documents/26583.
[9]倪朱亮,申楠,胡毅.标准必要专利实施许可条件的裁判思路研究[J].知识产权,2016(12):26-31.
[10]毕春丽.司法解释第24条有关标准专利停止侵权的内涵和外延的思考[J].中国知识产权,2016(12):64-66.
[11]刘婧.统一细化专利侵权裁判标准,营造有利于创新的法治环境——最高人民法院民三庭负责人就专利法司法解释(二)答记者问[N].人民法院报,2016-03-23(2).
[12]徐新宇.标准必要专利许可行为的反垄断规制思考[J].中国价格监管与反垄断,2017(3):16-19.
[13]仲春.专利国际诉讼中反禁令的司法应对[J].知识产权,2018(4):88-96.
(1)eBay Inc.v.MercE xchange,L.L.C.,547 U.S.388,391(2006).
(1)Apple,Inc.v.Motorola,Inc.,869 F.Supp.2d 901,913-914(N.D.Ill.2012).
(2)FTC曾持类似观点,认为FRAND承诺是拒绝颁布禁令、给予许可费不会造成不可挽回损失的强有力证据。Federal Trade Commission,The Evolving IP Market Place:Aligning Patent Notice and Remedies with Competition(2011),March 2011,235.
(3)这是自1987年美国前总统里根以来,历任总统首次行使否决权驳回ITC的判决,并由美国贸易代表办公室(USTR)执行发布,参见http://www.ustr.gov/sites/default/files/08032013%20Letter_1.PDF,2018年4月3日。
(4)该演讲被美国专利商标局前局长David Kappos评价为“司法部在我数十年的法律实践中最重要的反垄断讲话”。演讲内容参见https://www.justice.gov/opa/speech/assistant-attorney-general-makan-delrahim-delivers-remarks-usc-gould-school-laws-center,2018年3月8日。
(5)演讲内容参见https://www.justice.gov/opa/speech/principal-deputy-assistant-attorney-general-andrew-c-finch-delivers-remarks-heritage,2018年3月8日。
(1)美国司法部反垄断部门对电气与电子工程师学会(IEEE)专利政策修正案的商业审查函内容,参见美国司法部官网:https://www.justice.gov/atr/response-institute-electrical-and-electronics-engineers-incorporated,2018年4月8日。
(2)在不能适时地获得公权救济,且不能立即行使自力救济就会导致请求权落空或者极难行使的情况下,为实现自己请求权目的而取走、破坏或毁损物品,或者扣留有逃跑嫌疑的义务人或者去除义务人对某一行为的抵抗等,皆不被认为构成不法行为。