标题: | 扩张权利金收取标的之违法性判断─以美国智财实务与竞争规范为中心 The Illegality Analysis of Extending the Subject-Matter for Royalties: Centering on Judicial Practices of U.S. Intellectual Property. |
作者: | 郑卉晴 Cheng, Huei-Ching 王立达 Wang, Li-Dar 科技法律研究所 |
关键字: | 包裹授权;销售总额权利金;专利滥用;搭售;技术授权;飞利浦案;专利库;反托拉斯法;package license, block booking;total-sales royalty;patent misuse;tying arrangement;technology licensing;Philips case;patent pool;competition law |
公开日期: | 2010 |
摘要: | 智慧财产权利人所为之扩张权利金收取标的行为,本质上为逾越法定范围的权利行使,理应受到竞争规范之规制。在美国法上法院却依照案件特征不同,对“强制性包裹授权”(mandatory package licenses)与“销售总额权利金”(total-sales royalties)案件给予相异的违法性评价,形成两个不同类型,反而使本质相同的行为出现不同的规范方式。本文认为应可从两类案件中提取共通要素,形成一套适用于所有扩张收取标的行为的判断标准。首先可以透过权利金计算便利性、预留营运自由度、排除竞争及创新等角度,作为初步厘清其适法与否的起点。进而则可透过本文提出的四项违法性判断要素,定位个别行为的违法强度。本文研究发现,以销售总额权利金为主的态样,其违法程度明显高于另一类型,此外无论何种类型之案件,只要构成事实上独家交易之情形,其违法性即会显着提升。本文所建构的判断标准,有别于美国实务的类型化作法,采取更一致的分析基础,能避免过度类型化的缺点,同时亦可提供我国竞争实务更细致的思考方向。 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 |
显示于类别: | Thesis |
文件中的档案:
If it is a zip file, please download the file and unzip it, then open index.html in a browser to view the full text content.