FRAND允諾的法律性質及相關權利金問題之研究

Abstract

標準必要專利權人對標準制定組織作成，依公平、合理、非歧視(Fair, Reasonable and Non-discriminatory，簡稱FRAND)之條款向技術標準實施者進行授權之允諾時，標準必要專利權人、標準制定組織及技術標準實施者間，彼此間之法律關係為何？目前多數見解認為，標準必要專利權人與標準制定組織間係成立契約關係，標準必要專利權人對標準制定組織負有依FRAND條款進行授權之義務。然而，有問題者係標準必要專利權人與技術標準實施者間之法律關係為何，將視FRAND允諾法律性質之不同而有所差異。自比較法觀點，美國、中國大陸、英國等國之司法審判實務上及學說上有不同之見解，本文進行比較與分析。\n自比較法觀點，於美國、中國大陸、英國等國之司法審判實務上，法院多以合理權利金法計算侵害標準必要專利之損害賠償。英國法院係以權利金比較法計算權利金費率並透過由上而下法驗算之；而美國、中國大陸之法院則係進行假設性協商法之操作以決定合理權利金費率。於假設性協商法之操作上，多以該標準必要專利技術被納入技術標準時，作為假設性協商法之操作時點，並針對個案情況調整應考量之參考因子。本文對美國、中國大陸、英國等國司法審判實務之相關裁判以及相關學者之評析進行比較與分析後，提出於我國法上操作模式之建議，望能提供我國司法審判實務上面臨標準必要專利之相關爭議時之參考。

Standard essential patent (referred to as SEP) holders make pledges of licensing their SEPs to the technical standard implementers under fair, reasonable, non-discriminatory (referred to as FRAND) terms to the SSOs. What are the legal relationship between the SSOs and the technical standard implementers? At present, most of views indicate that contractual relationships established between SEP holders and the SSOs, so SEP holders have obligations to license their SEPs to the technical standard implementers under FRAND terms. However, issues aroused about the relationships between SEP holders and the technical standard implementers, vary depending on the legal nature of the FRAND pledges. From comparative law perspective, there are different views on the judicial trial practice and the scholars’ opinions in the U.S., mainland China and the U.K. compared and analyzed in this paper.\nFrom comparative law perspective, in the practice of judicial trials in the U.S., mainland China and the U.K., the courts usually calculate the damages for SEP infringement from reasonable royalties. The courts in the U.K. calculate reasonable royalty rates by the comparable method and examine by the top down method; while the courts in the U.S. and mainland China apply the hypothetical negotiation method to determine reasonable royalty rates. Most of the views indicate that the timing of applying hypothetical negotiation method is at the time of SEPs included in the technical standards, and the reference factors should be taken into account varying with the cases. This paper compares and analyzes the relevant judicial trial practice referees and the scholars’ opinions in the U.S., mainland China and the U.K., and propose suggestions in our country’s law. Hope to provide references of relevant issues of the standard patent in our judicial trial practice.