案件資訊：
原告/專利權人：Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd
侵權被告：ZTE Corp. etc.
系爭專利：EP2090050
涉及法條：
Article 102 TFEU（The Treaty on the Functioning of European Union，歐盟運行條約）
Article 102
(ex Article 82 TEC)
Any abuse by one or more undertakings of a dominant position within the internal market or in a substantial part of it shall be prohibited as incompatible with the internal market in so far as it may affect trade between Member States.
Such abuse may, in particular, consist in:
(a) directly or indirectly imposing unfair purchase or selling prices or other unfair trading conditions;
(b) limiting production, markets or technical development to the prejudice of consumers;
(c) applying dissimilar conditions to equivalent transactions with other trading parties, thereby placing them at a competitive disadvantage;
(d) making the conclusion of contracts subject to acceptance by the other parties of supplementary obligations which, by their nature or according to commercial usage, have no connection with the subject of such contracts.
規範在歐洲境內具有市場支配的企業經營，不允許影響成員國間的貿易的權利濫用，此類濫用包括：(a)直接或間接不公平買賣與交易條件；(b)限制生產、市場或技術發展而造成消費者損害；(c)與其他貿易方以不同條件的交易而造成競爭劣勢；(d)與其他貿易方訂出補充義務卻無關商業用途的合約。
歐洲專利有侵權爭議時，原則上是以發生疑似侵權行為的各會員國的國內法處理，而此案更涉及歐盟運行條約。
案件討論：
系爭專利（EP2090050）揭露在通訊系統中建立同步訊號的技術，離散傅立葉頻域係數轉為時域表示，這離散時域表示則有利於建立同步訊號。系爭專利權人Huawei曾於2009年向ETSI告知系爭案為LTE標準專利，並同意向第三方以FRAND授權。
"That patent was notified to ETSI on 4 March 2009 by Huawei Technologies as a patent essential to the ‘Long Term Evolution’ standard. At the same time, Huawei Technologies undertook to grant licences to third parties on FRAND terms."
Huawei與ZTE曾討論合理授權條件，但顯然ZTE並未接受，更要求交叉授權，卻又沒有任何協議，於是，Huawei於2011在德國法院（Judgment of Court, fifth chamber）提出侵權告訴、損害賠償，並尋求對ZTE產品禁制令。
除了事實討論，法院更判斷是否Huawei濫用其在市場支配的地位，理由是Huawei在市場上有主導地位，以標準專利作出以上法律動作容易被視為濫用行為。
法院認為要認定Huawei濫用權利，也就是違反TFEU Article 102，要有以下前提：
第一，被告（ZTE）應取得申請人（Huawei）無條件提供授權合約，且非僅針對侵權案，也就是Huawei想要避免違反TFEU規定的話，應無條件授權ZTE；而被告應考量自身是否要被此合約所約束，且申請人有義務接受若被告拒絕的話會導致不公平競爭的問題，或是侵犯非歧視原則（principle of non-discrimination）。
第二，在申請人同意提供合約之前，當被告採用專利教示的技術，應知道在將來合約中使用該專利應付的責任，包括使用費用。
"First, the defendant must have made the applicant an unconditional offer to conclude a licensing agreement not limited exclusively to cases of infringement, it being understood that the defendant must consider itself bound by that offer and that the applicant is obliged to accept it where its refusal would unfairly impede the defendant or infringe the principle of non-discrimination.
Secondly, where the defendant uses the teachings of the patent before the applicant accepts such an offer, it must comply with the obligations that will be incumbent on it, for use of the patent, under the future licensing agreement, namely to account for acts of use and to pay the sums resulting therefrom."
當然，爭議仍在ZTE是否接受Huawei所謂無條件的授權合約，因為ZTE認為Huawei提出的合約並非"無條件"，包括考量合約所稱授權金額是否及於過去的產品。當ZTE在此態度下拒絕繳付授權金，在法院的態度是可以同意禁制令。不過，在過去如Samsung所興起的手機產業訴訟中，歐洲議會傾向不發出禁制令，特別是針對標準與必要專利（SEP），而是讓雙方可以協調授權，避免濫用標準專利與禁制令。
在本案例中，經權衡原告與被告知尖的濫用行為，或是不公平平衡等法律議題時，歐洲法院侵權被告（ZTE）是有意願針對系爭專利（EP2090050）協調授權，且專利權人（Huawei）也同意授權，這不足以構成市場獨占的濫用行為。
歐洲法院作出初步判決（非終判）：
1. 前述歐盟運行條約（TFEU）102解釋為具有SEP專利的標準制定者以FRAND授權原則提供第三方授權合約，即不會有濫用其市場支配地位的行為。且在專利權人提出禁制令、要求被告回收產品等行為之前，若專利權人已經警告侵權被告者，且被告仍持續使用時，提出禁制令等法律程序並不會有濫用市場支配地位的違法行為。
2. 在前述歐盟運行條約（TFEU）102規定中，當具有市場支配地位且擁有SEP專利的制定標準者從侵權訴訟中同意以FRAND原則進行授權時，並不禁止尋求過去侵權行為進行索賠。
1. Article 102 TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that the proprietor of a patent essential to a standard established by a standardisation body, which has given an irrevocable undertaking to that body to grant a licence to third parties on fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory (‘FRAND’) terms, does not abuse its dominant position, within the meaning of that article, by bringing an action for infringement seeking an injunction prohibiting the infringement of its patent or seeking the recall of products for the manufacture of which that patent has been used, as long as:
– prior to bringing that action, the proprietor has, first, alerted the alleged infringer of the infringement complained about by designating that patent and specifying the way in which it has been infringed, and, secondly, after the alleged infringer has expressed its willingness to conclude a licensing agreement on FRAND terms, presented to that infringer a specific, written offer for a licence on such terms, specifying, in particular, the royalty and the way in which it is to be calculated, and
– where the alleged infringer continues to use the patent in question, the alleged infringer has not diligently responded to that offer, in accordance with recognised commercial practices in the field and in good faith, this being a matter which must be established on the basis of objective factors and which implies, in particular, that there are no delaying tactics.
2. Article 102 TFEU must be interpreted as not prohibiting, in circumstances such as those in the main proceedings, an undertaking in a dominant position and holding a patent essential to a standard established by a standardisation body, which has given an undertaking to the standardisation body to grant licences for that patent on FRAND terms, from bringing an action for infringement against the alleged infringer of its patent and seeking the rendering of accounts in relation to past acts of use of that patent or an award of damages in respect of those acts of use.
my two cents:
本篇僅是提出一些標準專利與濫用行為的議題，並無絕對的結論。
很多值得討論的議題：
是否SEP專利權人對有意願接受授權合約的專利侵權者提出禁令是一種濫用市場支配地位的行為？或是有任何必要行為是導致濫用市場支配行為？是否有關損害賠償、商品回收等要求都是濫用市場支配地位的行為？
法院似乎並未判決，但是卻提出一些SEP授權的相關考量，包括是否濫用標準專利、禁制令、不公平競爭，或是被告以FRAND授權原則上又提出不見得是合理的條件。這是個難題沒錯。
當然，某SEP在相關技術領域的重量是可以討論的，在合理的比例原則下應該讓整個市場可以公平競爭。
華為（Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd）v.中興通訊（ZTE Corp.）
http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?docid=165911&doclang=en
有關歐洲標準專利探討的專業報導：
http://www.naipo.com/Portals/1/web_tw/Knowledge_Center/Infringement_Case/publish-119.htm
Ron
沒有留言:
張貼留言