摘要
标准必要专利具有专利和标准的双重属性,其牵涉的垄断问题远远复杂于普通专利。也由此,知识产权滥用的判断标准也不同于普通专利,其更容易被反垄断法所规制。在标准必要专利高额许可费涉及垄断的案件中,到底优先适用反垄断法还是知识产权法、合同法等私法,在理论界和实务界均存在争议。对此,本文通过分析已有的案例和查阅相关文献,梳理总结出标准必要专利权利人的地位可以作为一个区分适用反垄断法还是知识产权法的判断条件,此判断条件是对优先适用何种法律的回应。在此基础上,法院可以基于FRAND原则,进一步界定标准必要专利的高额许可费是否合理,并使得该费用在权利人和实施人之间得到合理分配。
Standard essential patent has the dual properties of patent and standard, which involves far more complex monopoly problems than ordinary patent. Therefore, the judgment standard of intellectual property abuse is different from ordinary patent, which is easier to be regulated by antitrust law. In the case of monopoly involving high license fee of standard necessary patents, it is controversial in both theoretical and practical circles whether anti-monopoly law or private law such as intellectual property law and contract law should be preferred. In this regard, by analyzing existing cases and reviewing relevant literature, this paper summarizes that the status of the standard necessary patent right holder can be used as a judgment condition to distinguish the applicable anti-monopoly law or intellectual property law, and this judgment condition is a response to which law is preferentially applied. On this basis, the court can further define whether the high license fee of standard necessary patents is reasonable based on the FRAND principle, and make the fee reasonably distributed between the right holder and the implementor.
出处
《法学（汉斯）》
2022年第6期1139-1144,共6页
Open Journal of Legal Science
