依FRAND原则确定
SEP使用费的司法救济
--评华为与IDC案
北京大学法学院/知识产权学院
张平
2014年6月12日
Judicial Remedies of Determining SEP Royalties Based on FRAND Principle Commentary on IDC v. Huawei
Zhang Ping
Law School &School of Intellectual Property
Peking University
June 12 2014
依FRAND原则确定SEP使用费的司法救济
一、标准必要专利纠纷的解决思路
二、FRAND原则是对SEP的限制
三、本案审判中FRAND许可费率的计算
四、本案的影响
Judicial Remedies of Determining SEP Royalties Based on FRAND Principle
I. Thoughts of Solutions to SEP related disputes
II. FRAND principle is a restriction to SEP
III. Calculation of FRAND royalties in the trial of the said case
IV. Influence of the said case
标准必要专利问题的解决思路司法审判中如何应用FRAND原则确定公平的救济
标准化机构寻求FRAND专利政策；善意合作者之间
的约定；其法律
效率一直不确定
事前措施FRAND 事后措施FRAND
一、标准必要专利纠纷的解决思路
专利权的限制
禁令：FRAND承诺
的不可撤销
补偿：损害赔偿？
许可费补偿？
Thoughts of Solutions How to determine fair remedies by applying FRAND principle in Judicial trial?
SSOs seek for FRAND patent policies; agreements among cooperators with good will; legal effect remain undetermined.
Ex ante Measures FRAND
Ex post Measures FRAND
I. Thoughts of Solutions to SEP Related Disputes
Restrictions on patent
Injunction: FRAND Commitment
is irrevocable
Compensation: for damages?
For royalties?
一、标准必要专利纠纷的解决思路
2013年10月，广东高院二审维持了深圳中院对华为与IDC公司专利许可使用费纠纷案件的判决，使得由标准组织设立的所谓FRAND原则终于通过司法判决给出了明确的解读。标准必要专利（SEP）纠纷长久以来一直是美国及欧盟法院审理的热点及难点案件，其中关于标准组织的FRAND原则在司法审判中的法律效力如何确定，公平、合理、无歧视的许可费率怎演计算，各国法院始终都没有给出清晰的判决，特别是FRAND自身语言的模糊和概括性难以在司法中直接适用，这也导致FRAND许可成了“空洞的承诺”，进而导致涉及SEP的竞争恶化，权利滥用越来越严重。
I. Thoughts of Solutions to SEP Related Disputes
In October 2013, Guangdong High People’s Court sustained the trial decision concluded by Shenzhen Intermediate People’s Court concerning dispute of royalties between Huawei and IDC, which provided an explicit interpretation on the so-called FRAND principle established by SSO via judicial decisions. The disputes concerning SEP has been hot and hard cases both in US and EU. There are quite a few issues remain unclear in judicial decisions of various nations such as how to determine the legal effect of FRAND principle established by SSO in judicial trial, how to calculate fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory royalties. More specifically, the ambiguity and generality of the language of FRAND per se make it difficult to directly apply in judiciary, which make the FRAND license “blank commitment”. Furthermore, the competition involving SEP goes worse and the abuse of right become more and more severe.
二、FRAND原则是对SEP的限制
尽管各大标准化组织尽力采用FRAND来约束专利权人日后绑架技术标准，但是由于FRAND原则具有多解性和不可操作性，专利权人完全可以在加入标准化组织的时候承诺接受FRAND原则，而待实施技术标准时再用种种限制性条款将FRAND原则架空。
所以，在事后的司法救济中法院对FRAND原则的解释至关重要。深圳法院在确定何为FRAND许可时其把握的原则是：FRAND许可是对标准必要专利权人的一种限制。
II. FRAND Principle is a Restriction to SEP Though every SSO tries every efforts to use FRAND principle to restrict patentees from kidnapping technical standards, because of the multi-interpretation and non-operability of the principle, it is completely feasible that the patentees may make commitment to accept the FRAND principle when trying to participating the SSO and make it impracticable via various restrictive terms in implementing the technical standard.
Therefore, it is vitally important for the court to interpret FRAND principle in ex post judicial remedy. The basic ground of Shenzhen Intermediate People’s court when determining what id FRAND principle is that FRAND license is a restriction to the patentees of SEP.
二、FRAND原则是对SEP的限制
1、专利权人承诺FRANGD许可的合同限制
诚实信用的披露标准必要专利
履行其许可他人使用专利的义务
保持公平、合理、无歧视的许可价格
2、防止权利滥用的限制
技术标准具有公共产品属性，必须考虑到公共利益和竞争秩序，防止专利权人绑架技术标准。
II. FRAND Principle is a Restriction to SEP
i. Contractual restriction to the patentee’s commitment of FRAND license, which include:
disclose the SEP in a bona fide manner
carry out the obligation of license
guarantee a fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory licensing price
ii. Restriction of preventing from abuse of right
Technical standard has nature of public product, so the public interests and competition orders should also be taken into account in order to prevent the patentees from “kidnapping” the technical standard.
二、FRAND原则是对SEP的限制
这一限制的基础来源于2008年7月8日最高人民法院关于朝阳兴诺公司按照建设部颁发的行业标准《复合载体夯扩桩设计规程》设计、施工而实施标准中专利的行为是否构成侵犯专利权问题的函：
“鉴于目前我国标准制定机关尚未建立有关标准中专利信息的公开披露及使用制度的实际情况，专利权人参与了标准的制定或者经其同意，将专利纳入国家、行业或者地方标准的，视为专利权人许可他人在实施标准的同时实施该专利，他人有关实施行为不属于专利法第十一条所规定的侵犯专利权的行为。专利权人可以要求实施人支付一定的使用费，但支付的数额应明显低于正常许可使用费。”
II. FRAND Principle is a Restriction to SEP The ground of such restriction generated from Letter of the Supreme People's Court on the Issue of Whether the Exploitation of a Patent in the Specification for the Design of Ram-compaction Piles with a Composite Bearing Base, an Industrial Standard Issued by the Ministry of Construction, by Chaoyang
Xingnuo Company Which Has Conducted Design and Construction according to the Standard Constitutes a Patent Infringement, which was issued on July 8 2008:
“In view of the facts that the SSOs in China has not established the system of disclosure and use of patent-related information in standards, the patentee, when participating the setting of standards or has agreed the adoption of his patents into national, industrial or local standards, is deemed to grant license to use the said patents at the same time. The acts of exploiting the said patents do not constitute the acts of patent infringement as was provided in Article 11 of the Patent Law of PRC. The patentees may require for a certain amount of royalties, the amount of which yet should be obviously lower than normal royalties.”
二、FRAND原则是对SEP的限制
虽然上述答复意见，仅仅针对个案，并不具有普遍的指导意义，但其确立技术标准相关专利纠纷案件的基本原则：
1、参与制定标准的专利权人都应当具有披露义务；
2、涉及技术标准的专利侵权救济方式不适于停止侵权等禁令救济；
3、技术标准中专利的许可费应当不高于该专利没进入技术标准时设
定的许可费。即专利权人不能利用技术标准挟持市场，而收取高额的许可费。
尽管对这个答复尚有一些争议，比如：何谓“参与了”技术标准的制定，何谓“明显低于正常许可使用费”，使用了他人的标准必要专利为什么不属于专利侵权等文字表述
II. FRAND Principle is a Restriction to SEP
Although the aforesaid reply is simply for a specific case and does not provide a general guidance, it does establish some basic principles in
dealing with technical standard-related patent disputes：
i. The patentees participating the standard setting has the obligation
of disclosure;
ii. The remedies of injunction such as cessation of infringement shall
not be applied in infringement of patents involved in standards;
iii. The royalties for the patent in technical standards shall not be
higher than the royalties set before the patent is adopted in technical
standard, namely, the patentee is not allowed to hijack the market via
technical standard and collect high royalties.
There are still some dispute with respect to the reply, such as how to
define “participating in” the standard setting, what is “royalties
obviously lower than normal royalties” and the literal interpretation
on why use other’s SEP does not constitute patent infringement.
法官的原则：许可使用费本身价格的确定合理, 许可使用费相比较的公平，在同类产品和被许可方之间的许可使用费没有明显的歧视。
以下是考量的因素:
一是评估特定无线通信产品中应支付的标准必要专利许可使用费的比例;
二是考虑涉案标准必要专利的数量、质量、研发投入等情况;
三是参考标准必要专利权人已达成协议并收取的可量化的使用费率标准;
四是考量欲授权的标准必要专利的地域范围。
三、本案审判中FRAND 许可费率的计算
The principle of the court: the determination of the price of the royalty per se is reasonable, the royalty is relatively fair and there is no distinctive discrimination among licensees in products of the same category.
The factors taken into accounts include:
i. Evaluating the proportion of SEP royalty that should be paid in specific wireless communication product;
ii. Taking factors including the number, the quality and R&D investment of the SEP into account;
iii. Taking reference of the quantifiable criteria of royalties in the agreement the patentees of SPE has reached and collected ; iv. Considering the scope of the region of the SEP license.
III. Calculation of FRAND Royalties in the Trial of the Said Case
三、本案审判中FRAND许可费率的计算
尽管IDC历史上没有专门针对中国基本专利的许可，中国基本专利的许可费率可参照全球或一定范围的专利包许可条件，结合各方面情况考量确定一个费率或费率范围，需要考量的各方面因素主要包括：专利数量，专利有效期，专利质量和价值，许可条件，司法实践差异，市场份额，平均售价，利润水平，经济发展水平，等等。
III. Calculation of FRAND Royalties in the Trial of the Said Case
Though historically IDC did not have license specially for Chinese SEP, the royalties of Chinese SEP may
take reference of the global patent portfolio or patent portfolio of a certain range. The determination of the royalty or the range of royalties should take
consideration of various factors include: the number of patents, the duration, the quality and value, the
licensing terms, the differences of judicial practice,
the market shares, the average price, the level of
profit, the level of economic development, etc.
三、本案审判中FRAND费率的确定
深圳法院按照FRAND条件判决许可费率，考虑如下因素：
1、每一个标准必要专利的价值评估。在涉及成千上万的通讯标准的必
要专利上是一个巨大的工程，且目前标准必要专利中鱼龙混杂，。--本身合理，无法实现
2、按IDC现有的全球许可费收入，及华为全球市场份额，计算华为应
缴纳的全球许可费，然后再考虑中国市场的因素。--本身合理
3、按照IDC提供的历史许可协议。如果IDC不提供历史许可协议，可
以按优先级依IDC许可给Apple、Samsung公司的许可费率计算，因为这两家公司的最具有行业代表性。--相比较合理
4、在上述均无法判断时，法院也可以判决一个许可费率的范围，参照
前述原则，不超过和低于原告在国际市场上的最高和最低许可费率，可以有原告举证其最高和最低的费率计算标准。--相比较合理
法官根据诸多因素最终确定了合理许可费率的地域基于中国而不是全球市场
III. Determination of FRAND Royalties in the Trial of the Said Case
Shenzhen Intermediate People’s Court, in determining the royalties based on FRAND conditions, have taken such factors into account including:
i. Evaluation of the value of each SEP: it turns out to be a tremendous project since the
thousands of essential patents are involved in communication standard, in which , both good and bad essential patents are mixed up together currently. ---reasonable per se yet unrealizable
ii. Determining the global royalties Huawei should pay based on the current global income of royalties collected by IDC and the shares Huawei has taken in the global market, and then take the factors of Chinese market into account. ---- reasonable per se iii. Based on historical license agreements presented by IDC. In case IDC did not present those agreements, the royalties in the license to Apple and Samsung can be taken as criteria in priorities as those two companies are significant representatives of the
industry. ----relatively reasonable
In case none of the aforesaid factors are available, the courts may rule a range for the royalties by taking reference of the aforesaid principles, which cannot exceed the
plaintiff’s highest royalty in international market or be lower than the lowest one. The plaintiff is allowed to prove the criteria for the calculation of the highest and lowest royalties.---- relatively reasonable
The region based on which the court finally determined the rational royalties are the Chinese market rather than the international market
五、评论及本案影响
深圳中院及广州高院这一判决是我国在该领域的开创性判决，在国际上也具有深远的意义。本案中，法院直接适用FRAND原则裁判许可费之争，体现了法官在知识产权保护、维护市场竞争秩序、鼓励科技创新等众多利益平衡中的睿智决断力。
IV. Influence of the Said Case and Comments
The decisions concluded by Shenzhen Intermediate People’s Court and Guangdong High People’s Courts are innovative with respect to the related area and have profound influence internationally. In the said case, the courts rule on the dispute concerning royalties by directly applying FRAND principle, which are wise and farsighted decisions demonstrating the judges’ subtle balance of interests among protecting intellectual property, maintaining market competition order and encouraging scientific and technical innovation.
To encourage peaceful use of IP as to
establish “green” innovation and competition environment