摘要
为了避免专利劫持和许可费堆叠,标准制定组织通常要求标准必要专利权利人在加入标准组织时承诺以FRAND原则进行专利许可。然而,由于FRAND原则本身的模糊性,导致该原则下标准必要专利许可费计算成为争论的焦点。TCL对爱立信和Unwired Planet对华为案是信息通信技术行业近两年来涉及FRAND许可费非常有影响力的案件,两案均采用"自上而下法"和"可比较许可协议法"对许可费进行了详细计算。然而由于两案对两种方法的具体适用不同,导致判决结果存在很大差异,两案中华为公司和TCL公司均是标准必要专利受让方。本文通过比较分析两个案件对上述两种许可费计算方法的具体适用,找出其差异,以期对中国许可费计算的理论和司法实践,以及信息通信技术企业应对国际标准必要专利许可、促进标准必要专利创新提供启示。
Prior to setting any standards,standard-setting organizations usually require the owner of standard essential patents(SEPs)to commit to license their patents under FRAND terms to avoiding patent hold-up and royalty stacking.However,dispute of SEPs royalty under FRAND principle has arisen from vagueness and fuzziness of FRAND itself.TCL V.Ericsson and Unwired Planet.V.Huawei are two significantly influential cases involving FRAND licensing fees in the judicial field in recent years.Both of them adopt Top Down Approach and Comparable License to calculate SEPs royalty in detail.However,due to the differences in the specific application of the two methods adopted by judges,the results of judgments in two cases are quite different.Furthermore,Huawei and TCL are both Chinese companies as the licensees in two cases.This paper compares and analyses the specific application of the mentioned two methods in two cases,and finds out their differences,in order to enlighten the theory and judicial practice of SEPs royalty calculation,guide patent licensing and promote SEPs innovation of Chinese ICT enterprises.
作者
张玉蓉
张晓娜
Zhang Yurong;Zhang Xiaona(Intellectual Property School of Shanghai University,Shanghai 200444,China)
出处
《中国科技论坛》
CSSCI
北大核心
2019年第12期126-135,共10页
Forum on Science and Technology in China
基金
教育部人文社会科学青年基金项目“FRAND原则下标准必要专利许可费率的确定研究”(17YJCZH253)
上海市浦江人才计划项目“我国专利无效制度研究”(15PJC054)
