期刊文献+

标准必要专利不公平许可费的认定 被引量:4

The Finding of Unfair SEP_sLicensing
下载PDF
导出
摘要 标准必要专利权人收取不公平许可费的行为可能在多方面损害竞争,反垄断法规制这一行为的关键是认定许可费收取的不公平性。考虑到标准必要专利的独特性并结合反垄断实践,分析标准必要专利许可费是否公平时可以参考的因素主要包括:标准必要专利的技术价值;符合相关标准的产品所承担的整体许可费情况;标准必要专利的许可历史或可比照的许可费标准;相关标准必要专利所负担的许可承诺;标准必要专利许可费的计费基础;禁令救济行为的合理性;许可协议中是否包含导致许可费过高的其他不公平许可条件。在对不公平许可费进行认定时,还需要构建或完善一些重要程序机制或保障机制,包括认定主体的选择、举证责任的配置、相关披露制度的建立以及承诺制度的适用等。 The SEPs owner's charging of unfair royalty fee may harm competition in many ways. Thus antitrust intervention is necessary in order to avoid unfair royalty fees in SEPs Licensing. The factors determine the fairness of SEPs royalty fee mainly include: the patent's intrinsic value, the overall royalty fees of the products that meet the relevant standards, the SEPs licensing history or the comparable royalty rates, licensing commitments of SEPs owner, the appropriate royalty base for SEPs licensing, the rationality of the injunction, and other unfair licensing conditions may lead an unfair royalty fee. In addition, some procedural systems are also necessary measures to regulate unfair royalty fees, such as the allocation of the burden of proof, the establishment of some disclosure systems and the application of commitment decisions.
机构地区 安徽大学法学院
出处 《竞争政策研究》 2016年第1期43-51,共9页 Competition Policy Research
关键词 标准必要专利 不公平许可费 公平许可费的认定因素 standard-essential patents(SEPs) unfair royalty fees the factors determine the fairness of royalty fees
  • 相关文献

参考文献15

二级参考文献89

  • 1廖志刚.专利侵权损害赔偿研究[J].重庆大学学报(社会科学版),2007,13(3):90-94. 被引量:12
  • 2史少华.披露与许可——困扰标准化工作的两大难题[J].信息技术与标准化,2007(1):63-65. 被引量:3
  • 3Richard A. Epstein, Antitrust Consent Decrees in Theory and Practice. Why Less Is More, The AEI Press (2007), p. 1.
  • 4See George Stephanov Georgiev, Contagious Efficiency. The Growing Reliance on U. S. --Style Antitrust Settlements in EU Law, 2007 Utah L. Rev. 971, p. 999.
  • 5Philippe Chon6, Said Souam, Arnold Vialfont, Commitments in Antitrust, p. 3, http.//WWW, chaire--eppp, org/files_chaire/Com- mitments in Antitrust. pdf, 2012-11 22.
  • 6See Milton Katz, The Consent Decree in Antitrust Administration, Harvard Law Review, Vol. 53, No. 3 (Jan. , 1940), pp. 423 426.
  • 7Wouter P.J. Wils, The Use of Settlements in Public Antitrust Enforcement Objectives and Principle, p. 6, p. 13, http.//ssrn. com/abstract= 1135627, 2012-11-22.
  • 8See MEMO/04/217, Brussels, 17. September 2004.
  • 9[日]根岸哲,舟田正之.《日本禁止垄断法概论》第3版,王为农,陈杰译,中国法制出版社2007年版,第517页.
  • 10See John Temple Lang, Commitmenl Decisions under Regulation 1/2003. Legal Aspects of a New Kind of Competition Decision, E.C.L.R. 2003, 24(8), p. 351, p. 348, p. 347.

共引文献204

同被引文献23

引证文献4

二级引证文献5

相关作者

内容加载中请稍等...

相关机构

内容加载中请稍等...

相关主题

内容加载中请稍等...

浏览历史

内容加载中请稍等...
;
使用帮助 返回顶部