标准必要专利全球费率管辖权的正当性基础批判——从“无线星球诉华为案”的合同视角切入

摘要
图/表
参考文献(48)
相关文章 (7)

全文: PDF (1130 KB) HTML (1 KB)
输出: BibTeX | EndNote (RIS)

摘要标准必要专利(SEP)全球许可费率管辖权的论证应遵循三段论逻辑形式,即以法律规范为大前提,以特定的案件事实为小前提,以一定法律效果的发生为结论。在“无线星球案”中,英国法院基于合同之诉确立全球费率管辖权,则需证成小前提SEP全球许可合同这一管辖基础的存在。根据“公平、合理和无歧视”(FRAND)许可合同的本质以及欧洲电信标准化协会(ETSI)知识产权政策的规定,达成SEP“全球一揽子许可”并非FRAND承诺的应有之义。全球性的FRAND许可合同本质是各法域内SEP许可合同的集合,考虑到不同法域内的专利许可关系各自独立,法院应当分别确定其管辖权,而非基于“所谓”全球许可合同进行“一揽子”管辖。揭示英国法院以合同为基础证成全球费率管辖权的逻辑缺陷,可为中国法院处理SEP全球许可纠纷的管辖争议提供启示。

	服务

	把本文推荐给朋友
	加入我的书架
	加入引用管理器
	E-mail Alert
	RSS
	作者相关文章
	赵歆扬

关键词 ：标准必要专利, FRAND承诺, 全球费率管辖权, 第三人利益合同, 专利地域性

Abstract：The argument for the jurisdiction of global licensing rates for standard essential patents(SEPs)should be structured in the form of a syllogism,that is,legal norms as the major premise,specific case facts as the minor premise,and the resulting legal effects as the conclusion.In the case of Unwired Planet v.Huawei,the British court asserted jurisdiction over global licensing rates based on a contractual claim,which required substantiating the minor premise,namely the existence of a global SEP licensing agreement,as the jurisdictional foundation.Given the nature of FRAND licensing contracts and ETSI intellectual property policy,achieving a SEP“global blanket license”is not what the FRAND commitment should be.In addition,a global FRAND licensing contract is essentially a collection of SEP license contracts in various jurisdictions.Considering the independence of patent licensing relationships in different jurisdictions,courts should determine their jurisdiction separately,rather than“blanket”jurisdiction based on“so-called”global licensing contracts.This paper reveals the logical defects of the British courts' contract-based global rate jurisdiction,providing insights for Chinese courts in resolving jurisdictional disputes concerning SEP global licensing.

Key words： Standard essential patent FRAND commitment Global rate jurisdiction Stipulation pour autrui Territoriality of patent

收稿日期: 2024-08-15

PACS:

D923.4

作者简介: 赵歆扬(1995—),女,山东济宁人,博士后,研究方向为知识产权法。

引用本文:

赵歆扬. 标准必要专利全球费率管辖权的正当性基础批判——从“无线星球诉华为案”的合同视角切入[J]. 中国科技论坛, 2025(6): 10-21.
Zhao Xinyang. A Critique of the Justification of Global Rate Jurisdiction for Standard Essential Patents ——From the Contractual Perspective of“Unwired Planet v.Huawei”. , 2025(6): 10-21.

链接本文:

http://www.zgkjlt.org.cn/CN/Y2025/I6/10

[1] CONTRERAS J L.The new extraterritoriality:FRAND royalties,anti-suit injunctions and the global race to the bottom in disputes over standards-essential patents[J].Boston University Journal of Science & Technology Law,2019,25:251-290.
[2] 程冰.知识产权国际私法新问题研究[M].北京:人民法院出版社,2020.
[3] Unwired Planet Intl.Ltd.v.Huawei Techs.Co.Ltd.[2017]EWHC 711(Pat)[EB/OL].(2017-04-05)[2024-12-22].https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/unwired-planet-v-huawei-20170405.pdf.
[4] TCL Comm.Tech.Holdings,Ltd.v.Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson,No.8:14-cv-00341,2017 U.S.Dist.LEXIS 214003(C.D.Cal.Dec.21,2017)[EB/OL].(2017-12-21)[2025-01-21].http://gfhhi07fffe4c53724d36s9xwvvnqnn05p6p0k.facz.libproxy.ruc.edu.cn/api/permalink/0df145bc-adec-4d64-9bbd-9f432e57fcc8/?context=1000516.
[5] 广东省深圳市中级人民法院(2020)粤03民初689号[EB/OL].[2024-12-16].https://www.iphouse.cn/cases/list.html?anyouid=21&fayuanid=45.
[6] 最高人民法院(2020)最高法知民辖终517号[EB/OL].[2025-01-16].https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s/n6_ECMrNzrC9I0qf5m-mbCQ.
[7] 最高人民法院(2023)最高法知民辖终282号[EB/OL].[2025-01-16].https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s/0rnVQsdXgYnp_VjyaeoYxQ.
[8] GERADIN D,KATSIFIS D.The use and abuse of anti-suit injunctions in SEP litigation:Is there a way forward?[J].GRUR International,2022,71:603-617.
[9] 阮开欣.论知识产权的地域性和域外效力[J].河北法学,2018(3):81-97.
[10] CORNISH W,LLEWELYN D,APLIN T.Intellectual property:Patents,copyrights,trademarks and allied rights[M].7th ed.London:Sweet & Maxwell,2010.
[11] Council Regulation 1215 /2012,On jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters(recast 2002)O.J.(L 12)(EC),art.24(4)[EB/OL].(2012-12-15)[2025-01-23].https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2012/1215/oj/eng.
[12] European Max Planck Group on CLIP.Principles on conflict of laws in intellectual property,art.2:201 & art.2:401[R/OL].(2011-12-01)[2025-01-23].https://www.ip.mpg.de/fileadmin/ipmpg/content/clip/Final_Text_1_December_2011.pdf.
[13] 阮开欣.知识产权侵权专属管辖之驳论[J].华中科技大学学报:社会科学版,2018(6):94-104.
[14] Optis Wireless Tech.,LLC v.Huawei Techs.Co.,No.217CV00123JRGRSP,2018 WL 3375192(E.D.Tex.July 11,2018)[EB/OL].(2018-07-11)[2025-01-24].https://www.westlaw.com/Document/If67b7360859f11e88be5ff0f408d813f/View/FullText.html?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&VR=3.0&RS=cblt1.0.
[15] 马一德.FRAND案例精选:第2卷[M].北京:科学出版社.
[16] Unwired Planet Intl.Ltd.v.Huawei Techs.Co.Ltd.[2020]UKSC 37[EB/OL].(2020-08-26)[2025-01-22].https://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/text/585807.
[17] Koninklijke Philips N.V.v.Xiaomi Inc[2021]EWHC 2170(Pat)[EB/OL].(2021-07-30)[2025-01-03].https://www.bristows.com/app/uploads/2021/10/2021-EWHC-2170-Pat-Philips-v-Xiaomi.pdf.
[18] Interdigital v.Lenovo[2023]EWHC 539(Pat),para.177[EB/OL].(2023-03-16)[2024-11-14].https://www.judiciary.uk/judgments/interdigital-v-lenovo/.
[19] Optis v.Apple[2021]EWHC 2564(Pat)[EB/OL].(2021-09-27)[2025-01-23].https://www.bristows.com/app/uploads/2021/10/2021-EWHC-2564-Pat-Optis-v-Apple.pdf. Microsoft Corpn v.Motorola Inc 871 F Supp 1089(W D Wash 2012)[EB/OL].(2013-04-25)[2025-01-23].http://gfhhi07fffe4c53724d36s9xwvvnqnn05p6p0k.facz.libproxy.ruc.edu.cn/api/permalink/99e38f30-5a58-4faa-adce-b8fa0b45f081/?context=1000516.
[20] Microsoft Corpn v.Motorola Inc 871 F Supp 1089(W D Wash 2012)[EB/OL].(2013-04-25)[2025-01-23].http://gfhhi07fffe4c53724d36s9xwvvnqnn05p6p0k.facz.libproxy.ruc.edu.cn/api/permalink/99e38f30-5a58-4faa-adce-b8fa0b45f081/?context=1000516.
[21] Microsoft Corpn v .Motorola Inc 696 F 3d 872(9th Cir 2012)[EB/OL].(2013-09-24)[2025-01-23].http://gfhhi07fffe4c53724d36s9xwvvnqnn05p6p0k.facz.libproxy.ruc.edu.cn/api/permalink/7d8ec2e6-b925-4f1e-9388-f0e756de9d47/?context=1000516.
[22] Pioneer v Acer,No.7 O 96/14[EB/OL].(2016-01-08)[2025-01-23].https://caselaw.4ipcouncil.com/german-court-decisions/lg-mannheim/pioneer-v-acer-lg-mannheim.
[23] Saint Lawrence v.Vodafone,No.4a O 73/14[EB/OL].(2016-03-31)[2025-01-22].https://caselaw.4ipcouncil.com/german-court-decisions/lg-dusseldorf/saint-lawrence-v-vodafone-lg-dusseldorf.
[24] Vestel Elektronik Sanayi Ve Ticaret A.S.& Anor v.Access Advance LLC & Anor[2021]EWCA Civ.440[EB/OL].(2021-03-26)[2025-01-23].https://www.bristows.com/app/uploads/2021/04/2021-EWCA-Civ-440-Vestel-v-Advance-Philips.pdf.
[25] 王泽鉴.民法思维:请求权基础理论体系[M].北京:北京大学出版社,2009.
[26] ETSI.Intellectual Property Rights Policy[EB/OL].[2025-01-23].https://www.etsi.org/images/files/IPR/etsi-ipr-policy.pdf.
[27] ETSI.Intellectual property rights policy,appendix A:IPR licensing declaration forms[EB/OL].(2022-12-12)[2025-01-23].https://www.etsi.org/images/files/IPR/etsi-ipr-policy.pdf.
[28] 韩世远.合同法总论:第4版[M].北京:法律出版社,2018.
[29] 谭袁.标准必要专利核心争议探究及制度构建[M].北京:中国社会科学出版社,2019.
[30] 李逸竹.标准必要专利FRAND承诺之法律性质辨析[J].重庆大学学报:社会科学版,2023(1):213-227.
[31] 叶雄彪,梅夏英.预约合同问题研究[J].中国社会科学院研究生院学报,2019(4):60-70.
[32] 王利明.预约合同若干问题研究:我国司法解释相关规定评述[J].法商研究,2014(1):54-62.
[33] 弗朗索瓦·泰雷等.法国债法:契约篇:下[M].罗结珍,译.北京:中国法制出版社,2018.
[34] 王利明,郭明瑞,方流芳.民法新论:下[M].北京:中国政法大学出版社,1988.
[35] 张吉豫.标准必要专利“合理无歧视”许可费计算的原则与方法:美国“Microsoft Corp.v.Motorola Inc.”案的启示[J].知识产权,2013(8):25-33.
[36] 崔建远.意思表示的解释规则论[J].法学家,2016(5):91-98.
[37] 崔建远.合同法:第7版[M].北京:法律出版社,2021.
[38] ETSI.ETSI SR 000 314 V2.31.1-Intellectual Property Rights(IPRs)[R/OL].(2022-03)[2025-01-23].https://www.etsi.org/deliver/etsi_sr/000300_000399/000314/02.31.01_60/sr_000314v023101p.pdf.
[39] 唐要家.标准必要专利许可滥用反垄断研究[M].北京:知识产权出版社,2020.
[40] 宗倩倩.标准必要专利的全球许可费率管辖权争夺及其应对路径研究[J].科技与法律:中英文,2022(1):26-35.
[41] Nokia Techs.OY & Nor v.Oneplus technology(Shenzhen)Co.,Ltd.& Ors(Rev1)[2021]EWHC 2952(Pat)[EB/OL].(2021-11-04)[2025-01-23].https://www.bristows.com/app/uploads/2021/11/2021-EWHC-2952-Pat-Nokia-v-OnePlus.pdf.
[42] The Department of Justice,United States Patent and Trademark Office,National Institute of Standards and Technology.draft policy statement on licensing negotiations and remedies for standards-essential patents subject to voluntary F/RAND commitments[EB/OL].(2021-12-06)[2025-01-21].https://www.justice.gov/media/1179041/dl?inline.
[43] U.S.Senate Committee on the Judiciary.Standard essential royalties act[EB/OL].(2022-11)[2025-01-15].https://ipwatchdog.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/SERA-text.docx.
[44] 仲春,倪晓微.美国《SEP费率法案》介评[EB/OL].(2023-06-02)[2025-01-20],https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s/eMbZvRHKoTzeMt4x7VyvJw.
[45] European Commission.Proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the council on standard essential patents and amending regulation(EU)2017/1001,art.38,6[EB/OL].(2023-04-27)[2025-01-11].https://single-market-economy.ec.europa.eu/publications/com2023232-proposal-regulation-standard-essential-patents_en.
[46] 最高人民法院(2022)最高法知民辖终字第167号[EB/OL].(2022-09-07)[2025-01-23].https://www.wipo.int/wipolex/zh/text/591432.
[47] 李娜.和解！OPPO 与诺基亚签署 5G 专利交叉许可协议[N/OL].(2024-01-24)[2024-12-13].https://m.yicai.com/news/101969355.html.
[48] 崔国斌.标准必要专利诉讼中禁诉令的适用[J].知识产权,2023(2):41-70.