Loading...
|
Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
https://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/152663
|
| Title: | 標準必要專利FRAND權利金計算之研究－以英國近期案例為中心
A Study on FRAND Royalty Calculations for Standard Essential Patents－Focusing on Recent Cases in the United Kingdom |
| Authors: | 李晏誠
Li, Yen-Cheng |
| Contributors: | 莊弘鈺
Chuang, Hung-Yu
李晏誠
Li, Yen-Cheng |
| Keywords: | 標準必要專利
FRAND權利金
可比較授權法
由上而下法
可比較授權協議
Standard Essential Patent (SEP)
FRAND Royalties
Comparable Licensing Approach
Top-Down Approach
Comparable License |
| Date: | 2024 |
| Issue Date: | 2024-08-05 13:08:04 (UTC+8) |
| Abstract: | 自英國法院於 2017 年作成首起全球標準必要專利 FRAND 權利金計算的判決，引發全世界科技產業、智財法界熱烈討論，由於直接牽涉授權雙方龐大利益，法院如何計算出 FRAND 權利金為重要議題，故本文研究核心將著重於 FRAND 權利金計算方法，描繪出可供依循之 FRAND 權利金計算指引。
本文透過回顧英國法院近年三個關於全球標準必要專利 FRAND 權利金計算所作成之司法判決，深入個案進行判決研究，並從中萃取關於可比較授權法、由上而下法的計算方法重要見解及關鍵因素。其後從比較研究之觀點進行判決分析、歸納，從中窺探當今英國法院權利金判決之趨勢，以及提出未來企業於司法判決中提出計算方法時應注意之處。
本文發現英國法院立場逐漸轉向專利實施人，計算方法上仍以可比較授權法為重，而影響權利金判決之重要因素包括專利覆蓋面、產品銷售分佈、利息因素。最後本文建議企業挑選可比較授權協議原則為「精」而不在「多」。期待本文對英國法院 FRAND 權利金計算之比較研究觀察與啟示，能作為資通訊產業與我國司法界面臨相關爭議時之參考。
Since the UK court made the first judgment on the calculation of global FRAND royalties for Standard Essential Patents in 2017, it has triggered heated discussions in the technology industry and the intellectual property legal sector all over the world. Since it directly involves the huge interests of the licensing parties, how the court calculates the FRAND royalties is an important issue. Therefore, the core of this paper will focus on the methodology of FRAND calculation and draw up a guideline for FRAND calculation.
In this paper, by reviewing three recent judgments of the UK courts on the calculation of global FRAND royalties for Standard Essential Patents, and conduct an in-depth study of the judgments, and extracts important insights and key factors on the calculation methods of Comparable Licensing Approach and the Top-Down Approach from them. Afterwards, the judgments are analyzed and summarized from the viewpoints of the comparative study, in which the trend of the current UK court's royalty judgments is explored, and the points that enterprises should pay attention to when proposing the calculation method in future judicial judgments are also suggested.
This paper finds that the position of the UK courts is gradually shifting towards licensee, and the calculation method is still based on the Comparable Licensing Method, while the important factors affecting royalty decisions include patent coverage, distribution of product sales, and interest factor. Finally, this article suggests that the principle for enterprises in selecting comparable licenses should be "fine" rather than "many". It is expected that this paper's observation and revelation on the comparative study of FRAND royalty calculation in the UK courts can serve as a reference for the information and communication industry and the judicial interface in Republic of China when facing related disputes. |
| Reference: | 一、中文書籍
曾志偉、林家聖、徐歷農、薛曉偉、周靜、劉宙燊、林子堯、唐家耀(2023)。專利營運的新機制。時報文化。
經濟部智慧財產局(2018)。日本特許廳標準必要專利授權談判指南中譯本。
劉尚志、李偉綺、呂柔慧(2018)。專利評價與損害賠償(一版)。元照出版有限公司。
二、中文期刊
吳采薇(2022)。標準必要專利之授權與爭端解決新近發展-以物聯網通訊技術為核心。科技法律透析，34(10)，19-25。
陳在方(2020)。5G 標準必要專利之趨勢、規範與授權-以國家安全疑慮為中心。台灣國際法學刊，16(1)，125-131。
黃惠敏(2020)。F/RAND 授權聲明之性質。萬國法律(234)。
陳秉訓(2020)。論不當得利返還請求權做為專利權侵害行為之救濟手段。華岡法粹，(68)，135-198。
朱翊瑄(2019)。Unwired Planet v. Huawei-英國的華為標準必要專利國際授 權之爭議。科技法律透析，31(9)，25-32。
莊弘鈺、鍾京洲、劉尚志(2019)。標準必要專利 FRAND 權利金計算──兼論智慧財產法院 105 年度民專上字第 24 號判決。交大法學評論(5)。
莊弘鈺、鍾京洲(2019)。專利貢獻度與不當得利:最高法院 106 年度台上字 2467 號判決評析。萬國法律(223)。
王立達(2018)。標準必要專利權行使之國際規範發展與比較分析── FRAND 承諾法律性質, 禁制令, 權利金與競爭法規制。月旦法學雜誌(275)。
沈宗倫(2017)。標準必要專利之法定授權與專利權濫用-以誠實信用原則為中心。政大法學評論(149)。
周伯翰(2012)。技術標準制定與競爭法規範及專利權濫用之檢討。科技法律評析(5)。
李素華(2008)。專利權行使與公平交易法── 以近用技術標準之關鍵專利為中心。公平交易季刊，16(2)。
陳人傑(2001)。網路產業競爭政策初探-以網路效應理論爲中心。科技法律透析，13(4)。
三、中文學位論文
劉彥麟(2023)。標準必要專利公平、合理、無歧視授權金計算方法之研究」。〔碩士論文，國立政治大學〕臺灣博碩士論文知識加值系統。
賴瑋成(2023)。從各國標準必要專利關鍵判決論 FRAND 授權談判實務策略。〔碩士論文。東吳大學〕臺灣博碩士論文知識加值系統。
辜世揚(2022)。行動通訊技術之標準必要專利研究。〔碩士論文。世新大學〕臺灣博碩士論文知識加值系統。
鐘京州(2019)。標準必要專利 FRAND 權利金計算之比較研究。〔碩士論文，國立交通大學〕臺灣博碩士論文知識加值系統。
朱師奧(2019)。標準必要專利之 FRAND 權利金評估。〔碩士論文，國立交通大學〕臺灣博碩士論文知識加值系統。
黃惠敏(2017)。論標準必要專利權行使與限制-以 F/RAND 授權爭議為中心〔博士論文，國立臺灣大學〕臺灣博碩士論文知識加值系統。
陳俐妤(2014)。標準必要專利權利金爭議之探討。〔碩士論文，國立政治大學〕臺灣博碩士論文知識加值系統。
四、外文法院判決
InterDigital v. Lenovo [2024] EWHC 596 (Ch) InterDigital v. Lenovo, [2023] EWHC 539 (Pat). Optis v Apple, [2023] EWHC 1095 (Ch).
Optis v Apple, [2023] EWCA Civ 438.
Optis v Apple, [2022] EWHC 561 (Pat).
Optis v Apple, [2021] EWCA Civ 1619.
Optis v Apple, [2022] EWCA Civ 792.
Optis v Apple, [2021] EWHC 2564 (Pat).
Optis v Apple, [2021] EWHC 3121 (Pat).
Optis v Apple, [2020] EWHC 2746 (Pat).
Sisvel v Haier, Federal Court of Justice, judgment dated 24 November 2020, Case No. KZR 35/17
Huawei Technologies Co, Ltd v Conversant Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L. [2019] EWCA Civ 38
Conversant Wireless Licensing SARL v Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd & Ors [2018] EWHC 808 (Pat)
Unwired Planet v. Huawei, [2018] EWCA Civ 2344 Unwired Planet v Huawei [2017] EWHC 711(Pat)
TCL Commc’n Tech. Holdings, Ltd. v. Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson, 2017 WL 6611635 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 21, 2017).
United Brands v. Commission, Case No 27/76.
Commonwealth Sci. & Indus. Research Organisation v. Cisco Sys., 809 F.3d 1295 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 3, 2015).
Microsoft Corp. v. Motorola, Inc., 795 F.3d 1024 (9th Cir. Wash. 2015).
Ericsson Inc. v. D-Link Sys., 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 22778 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 4, 2014).
知財高裁 2014 年(平成 26 年)5 月 16 日判決•平成 25 年(ネ)第 10043 號。
Ericsson Inc. v. D-Link Sys., 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 110585 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 6, 2013)
In re Innovatio IP Ventures, LLC, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 144061 49 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 27, 2013).
Microsoft Corp. v. Motorola, Inc., 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 60233 (W.D. Wash. Apr. 25, 2013).
LaserDynamics, Inc. v. Quanta Computer, Inc. 694 F.3d 51 (Fed. Cir. 2012) Microsoft Corp. v. Motorola, Inc., 854 F. Supp. 2d 993 (W. D. Wash. 2012). Resqnet.com, Inc. v. Lansa, Inc., 594 F.3d 860
五、英文書籍
Communication from The Commission to the European Parliament (2017) Setting out the EU Approach to Standard Essential Patents.
Shy, O. (2001). The economics of network industries. Cambridge university press. Miller, J. S. (2007). Standard setting, patents, and a access lock-in: RAND licensing
and the theory of the firm.
六、英文期刊
Ghafele, R. (2022). A valuation perspective on the FRAND injunction issued in Unwired Planet vs Huawei. World Patent Information, 70.
Kwan, M. (2021). The Pro-Patent Holder Approach in Unwired V. Huawei in Interpreting the ‘Fair, Reasonable and Non- Discriminatory’ Rule for the Licensing of Standard Essential Patents. Business Law Review.
Giritli, N. (2019). Unwired Planet v Huawei – is FRAND appealing? Queen Mary Journal of Intellectual Property, 9, 490-502.
Stitzing, R., Sääskilahti, P., Royer, J., & Audenrode, M. V. (2017). Over-declaration of standard essential patents and determinants of essentiality. Available at SSRN 2951617.
Kesan, J. P., & Hayes, C. M. (2014). FRAND's Forever: Standards, Patent Transfers, and Licensing Commitments. Ind. LJ, 89, 231-237.
Lemley, M. A., & Shapiro, C. (2006). Patent holdup and royalty stacking. Tex. L. Rev., 85, 1991.
Kattan, J. (2001). Disclosures and Commitments to Standard-Setting Organizations. Antitrust, 16, 22.
七、中英文網路資料
Potter Clarkson,(2024, Apr 3). Insights From InterDigital v Lenovo: More On The UK's Place In European SEP Litigation?, https://www.mondaq.com/uk/patent/1446434/insights-from-interdigital-v-lenovo- more-on-the-uks-place-in-european-sep-litigation
ETSI, (2024, Mar 17). ISO standards. http://www.iso.org/iso/home/standards.htm 黄莺(2023 年 10 月 19 日)。走向舞台中央:SEP 全球治理为何需要中国声
音?。知产财经。https://www.ipeconomy.cn/mobile/yuanchuang/7777.html InterDigital Website. https://www.interdigital.com/
Lenovo StoryHub,(2023, Jun 27). Lenovo Declared “Overall Winner” in InterDigital FRAND case, https://news.lenovo.com/pressroom/press-releases/lenovo- declared-overall-winner-in-interdigital-frand-case/
楊毅(2023 年 3 月 31 日)。中共飛彈還沒打過來，專利戰先開打!華為悄 大舉威逼台網通廠上繳鉅額權利金。上報。 https://www.upmedia.mg/news_info.php?Type=1&SerialNo=169448
ETSI, (2023, Dec 17).
ETSI Membership Information, https://www.etsi.org/membership
InQuartik, (2022,Aug 6).Over-Declaration: Why Some Standard Essential Patents Actually Aren’t Essential. http://www.iso.org/iso/home/standards.htm
ETSI, (2022)Annex 6: ETSI Intellectual Property Rights Policy, ETSI Rules of Procedure, Clause 15.6, at 41, http://www.etsi.org/images/files/IPR/etsi-ipr- policy.pdf
IEEE, (2020, Feb 16). About 802.11 and How To Participate. https://www.ieee802.org/11/abt80211.html |
| Description: | 碩士
國立政治大學
科技管理與智慧財產研究所
111364215 |
| Source URI: | http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0111364215 |
| Data Type: | thesis |
| Appears in Collections: | [科技管理與智慧財產研究所] 學位論文
|
Files in This Item:
| File |
Description |
Size | Format | |
|---|
| 421501.pdf | | 4490Kb | Adobe PDF | 0 | View/Open |
|
All items in 政大典藏 are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.
|
