標題: 擴張權利金收取標的之違法性判斷─以美國智財實務與競爭規範為中心
The Illegality Analysis of Extending the Subject-Matter for Royalties: Centering on Judicial Practices of U.S. Intellectual Property.
作者: 鄭卉晴
Cheng, Huei-Ching
王立達
Wang, Li-Dar
科技法律研究所
關鍵字: 包裹授權;銷售總額權利金;專利濫用;搭售;技術授權;飛利浦案;專利庫;反托拉斯法;package license, block booking;total-sales royalty;patent misuse;tying arrangement;technology licensing;Philips case;patent pool;competition law
公開日期: 2010
摘要: 智慧財產權利人所為之擴張權利金收取標的行為,本質上為逾越法定範圍的權利行使,理應受到競爭規範之規制。在美國法上法院卻依照案件特徵不同,對「強制性包裹授權」(mandatory package licenses)與「銷售總額權利金」(total-sales royalties)案件給予相異的違法性評價,形成兩個不同類型,反而使本質相同的行為出現不同的規範方式。本文認為應可從兩類案件中提取共通要素,形成一套適用於所有擴張收取標的行為的判斷標準。首先可以透過權利金計算便利性、預留營運自由度、排除競爭及創新等角度,作為初步釐清其適法與否的起點。進而則可透過本文提出的四項違法性判斷要素,定位個別行為的違法強度。本文研究發現,以銷售總額權利金為主的態樣,其違法程度明顯高於另一類型,此外無論何種類型之案件,只要構成事實上獨家交易之情形,其違法性即會顯著提升。本文所建構的判斷標準,有別於美國實務的類型化作法,採取更一致的分析基礎,能避免過度類型化的缺點,同時亦可提供我國競爭實務更細緻的思考方向。
Royalty Agreement which includes unpatented products or licensed but unused technologies, in essence, illegally extends the scope of intellectual property rights, and should be subject to patent misuse and antitrust regulations. Common subtypes of such unlawful expansion are mandatory package licenses and total-sales royalties. Under U.S. judicial decisions, mandatory package licenses and total-sales royalties apply to different case law, therefore, courts usually considered their illegality differently. However, due to their mutual characteristic of expanding royalty beyond the legal scope, there is inevitable need of constructing a unitary model to evaluate the validity of these acts. The author tried to set up a new set of considerations by extracting common elements of mandatory package licenses and total-sales royalties, which include “mutual convenience”, “freedom of operation”, and “anticompetitive effect of restrain competition and innovation”, then further conclude four key factors for judging the legality of extending royalty bases in the subject matter aspect. Through the lens of this new set of considerations and judging factors, there arises a clear discrepancy in the possibility and strength of being illegal between the two subtypes under competition law, which also explains the different results in U.S. judicial practices.
URI: http://140.113.39.130/cdrfb3/record/nctu/#GT079638510
http://hdl.handle.net/11536/43071
Appears in Collections:Thesis


Files in This Item:

  1. 851001.pdf
  2. 851001.pdf