1、标准专利许可与 FRAND原则应用实践,复旦大学 特聘教授 张乃根 主任,2014/4/2,1,标准专利许可研讨会,标准专利许可的由来,欧洲电信标准协会（ETSI）于1994年11月23日通过知识产权政策（IPR Policy，最新2013年3月20日修订）规定：制定标准时涉及必要IPR(专利为主）, ETSI总干事应立即请求权利人在3个月内书面作出“不可撤销的承诺”(an irrevocable undertaking）准备以公平合理及非歧视（FRAND）条件许可他人在实施标准时使用其专利。该承诺也可以“相互”（reciprocate）同意许可为条件。,2014/4/2,标准专利许可研讨会,
2、2,从ETSI知识产权政策看 FRAND的法律性质,ETSI Rule of Procedure, 20 March 2013 Annex 6: ETSI Intellectual Property Rights PolicyThe ETSI IPR Policy seeks a balance between the needs of standardization for public use in the field of telecommunications and the rights of the owners of IPRs.IPR holders whether members
3、 of ETSI and their Affiliates or third parties, should be adequately and fairly rewarded for the use of their IPRs in the implementation of Standards and technical Specifications.,2014/4/2,3,标准专利许可研讨会,ETSI 程序规则（2013年3月20日）附件6： ETSI 知识产权政策ETSI知识产权政策寻求在电信领域公众使用标准的需求与IPR所有人权利的平衡。IPR持有人无论是否ETSI及其分支成员或第三
4、方，均应在实施标准与技术要求方面因利用其IPR而获得充分与公平的回报。,2014/4/2,4,标准专利许可研讨会,6 Availability of Licenses6.1. When an Essential IPR relating to a particular Standard or Technical Specification is brought to the attention of ETSI, the Director-General of ETSI shall immediately request the owner to give within three months
5、 an irrevocable undertaking in writing that it is prepared to grant irrevocable licenses on fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory (“FRAND”) term and condition under such IPR to at least the following extent:Manufacture, including the right to make or have made customized components and sub-systems
6、 to the licensees own design for use in Manufacture; Sell, lease, or otherwise dispose of Equipment so Manufactured;Repair, use, or operated Equipment; andUse MethodsThe above undertaking may be made subject to the condition that those who seek licenses agree to reciprocate.,2014/4/2,5,标准专利许可研讨会,6.
7、许可的可获得性6.1 当一项必要知识产权与特定标准或技术要求引起ETSI关注，ETSI总干事应立即要求该所有人在3个月内作出不可撤回的书面承诺，准备以公平、合理与非歧视性（FRAND）条款和条件给予不可撤回的许可，并至少在如下范围：制造，包括制造或已制作既定零件和子系统的权利给予被许可方将其设计用于制造；销售，出租或处置设备以便制造；利用方法。上述承诺可受制于寻求许可者同意的互惠性。,2014/4/2,6,标准专利许可研讨会,ETIS IPR Licensing Declaration Form,General IPR Licensing DeclarationIn accordance wi
8、th Clause 6.1 of ETSI IPR Policy the Declaration and/or its Affiliates hereby informed ETSI that: The Declarant hereby irrevocably declares that (1) it and its Affiliates are prepared to grant irrevocable licenses under its/their IPR on terms and conditions which are in accordance with Clause 6.1 of
9、 ETSI IPR Policy, ,2014/4/2,标准专利许可研讨会,7,ETIS 许可声明表,一般IPR许可声明根据ETSI知识产权政策第6.1条，声明者及/或分支通知ETSI;声明者在此不可撤回声明(1)本人及分支准备不可撤回，以ETIS知识产权政策 第6.1条的条款、条件给予其知识产权的许可，,2014/4/2,标准专利许可研讨会,8,三大国际标准化组织的 标准专利许可政策,ISO/IEC/ITU common patent policy国际标准化组织/国际电工委员会/国际电信联盟共同专利政策(2007年4月18日更新)Guidelines for Implementation o
10、f the common patent policy for ISO/IEC/ITU 国际标准化组织/国际电工委员会/国际电信联盟共同专利政策的实施指南( （2007年3月1日制定，2012年4月23日修订）,2014/4/2,9,标准专利许可研讨会,共同专利政策,Recommendations | Deliverables are non-binding; their objective is to ensure compatibility of technologies and systems on a worldwide basis. To meet this objective, wh
11、ich is in the common interests of all those participating, it must be ensured that Recommendations | Deliverables, their applications, use, etc. are accessible to everybody.It follows, therefore, that a patent embodied fully or partly in a Recommendation | Deliverable must be accessible to everybody
12、 without undue constraints. To meet this requirement in general is the sole objective of the code of practice. The detailed arrangements arising from patents (licensing, royalties, etc.) are left to the parties concerned, as these arrangements might differ from case to case.,2014/4/2,10,标准专利许可研讨会,建议
13、标准是无拘束力的；其宗旨在于确保世界范围的技术和体系可兼容性。为达到这一符合所有参与方共同利益的目标，必须保证建议标准及其适用、使用等对任何人开放。因此，全部或部分被纳入建议标准的专利必须为任何人所获得而没有不适当的限制。一般地满足这一要求是行为准则的唯一目标。因专利而产生的具体安排（许可、费用等）留由有关当事方解决，因为这些安排可能个案而不同。,2014/4/2,11,标准专利许可研讨会,共同专利政策的实施指南,The Organizations should not be involved in evaluating patent relevance or essentiality wit
14、h regards to Recommendations/Deliverables, interfere with licensing negotiations, or engage in setting disputes on Patents; this should be left-as in the past-to the parties concerned.The Declaration Form gives Patent Holders the means of making a licensing declaration relative to rights in Patents
15、required for implementation of a specific Recommendation/Deliverable.,2014/4/2,12,标准专利许可研讨会,各组织均不涉及对建议标准有关专利的相关性或必要性作出评价，也不干预许可谈判或参与专利争端解决；如同以往，这应由相关当事方解决。声明表给予专利持有人一手段以作出与实施一项特定建议标准所需专利中有关权利的许可声明。,2014/4/2,13,标准专利许可研讨会,Patent Statement and Licensing Declaration,This declaration dose not represent a
16、n actual grant of license The Patent Holder is prepared to grant a license to an unrestricted number of applicants on a worldwide, non-discriminatory basis and on reasonable terms and conditions to make, use and sell implementations of the above document.Negotiations are left to the parties concerne
17、d and are performed outside the ITU-T,ITU-R,ISO or IEC.Also mark here if the Patent Holders willingness to license is conditioned on Reciprocity for the above documents.,2014/4/2,标准专利许可研讨会,14,专利陈述与许可声明,本声明不代表一项实际的许可授予。本专利持有人准备以世界范围、非歧视基础及合理条款、条件给予无限制数量的申请人制造、利用和销售上述文件的实施物。谈判留由有关当事方，并在ITU-T,ITU-R,ISO
18、 or IEC之外进行。另外注意：如专利持有人愿意许可以上述文件的互惠为条件。,2014/4/2,标准专利许可研讨会,15,从美国司法实践 看FRAND法律性质,Apple. Inc. v. Motorola, Inc. (N.D, Ill) Order denying motion for summary judgment (6/22/12) Posner, J“To begin with defendants injunctive claim, I dont see how, given FRAND, I would be justified in enjoining plaintiff
19、from infringing the patent subject to FRAND obligations unless plaintiff refuses to pay a royalty that meets the FRAND requirement. By committing to license its patents on FRAND terms, defendant committed to license the patent subject to the FRAND obligation to anyone willing to pay 1 FRAND royalty
20、and thus implicitly acknowledged that a royalty is adequate compensation for a license to use that patent. How could it do otherwise?.(p.18) ”,2014/4/2,标准专利许可研讨会,16,苹果诉摩托罗拉案 2012年6月22日裁决 伊利诺艾斯州北区联邦法院，驳回即时判决诉求,波斯纳法官：先考虑【被告】禁令诉求，我看不出在FRAND下，我如何论证禁止【原告】侵犯【在FRAND义务下的专利】，除非【原告】拒绝支付满足FRAND要求的许可费。根据其承诺以FRA
21、ND条件许可其专利，【被告】承诺许可其【FRAND义务下专利】给任何愿意支付FRAND许可费者，因而默认许可费是足够补偿其许可使用该专利的。如何另行其事呢？ 第18页,2014/4/2,标准专利许可研讨会,17,Apple. Inc. v. Motorola Mobility, Inc. (W.D, Wisc) Civil Action , Order (10/29/12) Crabb, J,There is no language in either the ETSI and IEEE contracts suggesting that Motorola and the standards-
22、setting organizations intended or agreed to prohibit Motorola from seeking injunctive relief. In fact, both policies are silent on the question of injunctive relief. Moreover, in light of the fact that patent owners generally have the right to seek injunctive relief both in district courts,.and in t
23、he International Trade Commission, that any contract purportedly depriving a patent owner of that right should clearly do so. The contracts at issue are not clear. P.15Court refused to declare that Motorola breached its contract or to “declare” a FRAND rate for Motorolas patent. P. 2,2014/4/2,标准专利许可
24、研讨会,18,苹果诉摩托罗拉案 2012年10月29日判决 威斯康辛州西区联邦法院，判决,克拉布法官：在欧洲电信标准学会和电气电子工程师学会的合同中均无任何表述提示摩托罗拉与标准化组织旨在，或同意禁止摩托罗拉寻求禁令。事实上，两组织政策均未涉及禁令问题。基于专利所有人一般拥有在地区法院和国际贸易委员会请求发布禁令的权利，因而，任何合同明确剥夺专利所有人都这一权利，显然应这样。本案该合同不清楚。第15页法院拒绝判决摩托罗拉违反其合同或“宣布”对于摩托罗拉专利的FRAND许可费率。第2页,2014/4/2,标准专利许可研讨会,19,Microsoft Corp. v. Motorola Inc.
25、(W.D, Wash) Order Granting Microsoft Motion Dismissing Motorola Complaint for Injunctive Relief (11/29/12) Robert, J,Statements by Motorola to ITU/IEEE re SEPs constituted binding agreements to license SEPs on FRAND terms; Microsoft third party beneficiary to those agreements, had right to FRAND lic
26、ense on SEPs; letter offers by Motorola re terms; applying for a patent license and negotiating towards a patent license were not conditions precedent to Motorolas obligations to grant license on FRAND terms.,2014/4/2,标准专利许可研讨会,20,微软诉摩托罗拉案 2012年11月29日 华盛顿州西区联邦法院判决支持微软， 驳回摩托罗拉请求禁令的诉求,罗伯特法官：摩托罗拉向ITU/I
27、EEE所做关于标准必要专利的声明构成以FRAND条件许可标准必要专利的有拘束力协议；微软的第三方收益于这些协议，有权要求标准必要专利的FRAND许可；摩托罗拉根据该条件所做的书面要约；适用于专利许可和谈判达成专利许可并非先于摩托罗拉有义务以FRAND条款给予许可的条件。,2014/4/2,标准专利许可研讨会,21,InterDigital Communications Inc. v. Huawei Te. Co D. Del. 2013, Motion for Expedited Discovery 3/14/13 Andrews J.,The court denied defendants
28、motions for expedited discovery and trial on their counterclaims to set a FRAND rate for three patents-in-suit:The gist of request is that each Defendant will be harmed if its products are excluded from the U.S. by the ITC, that the ITC cannot set a FRAND rate, and that the Plaintiff will not offer
29、it a FRANF rate although it has an obligation to do so. It dose not seem to me like a very practicable idea to try to race to a partial judgment here so that each defendant will be in a better position in the ITC litigation. Therefore, I will deny the motion for expedited and trial in the two cases.
30、 P.1,2014/4/2,标准专利许可研讨会,22,交互数字通信诉华为案 2013年3月14日裁决 德拉华州地区法院，拒绝华为请求加快庭审调查和确定3项涉案专利的FRAND许可费率的反诉,安德罗斯法官：请求的法理依据是每个被告如其产品被ITC排除出美国将受损，且ITC不能确定FRAND许可费率，尽管原告有义务作出FRAND要约，却没有这样做。在我看来，这不是很切合实际的想法，即试图在此作出部分判决以便每一个被告在ITC的诉讼中将有更好的地位。因此，我拒绝快速庭审调查和在这两起案件的诉讼。第 1页。,2014/4/2,标准专利许可研讨会,23,Related Cases regarding I
31、nterchange v. Huawei in U.S.,InterDigital Communications Inc. v. Huawei Te. Co ,etc. ITC . July 24, 2013, granting joint motion to amend protective order for the purpose to add specific provisions permitting the use of discovery from this investigation in four co-pending actions in D. Del. Regarding
32、 Huawei, ZTE, Nokia and Samsung. InterDigital Communications Inc. v. Huawei Te. Co ,etc. D. Del. November 13, 2013 The Court has set a Markman hearing for 9:30 a.m. on December 5, 2013.,2014/4/2,标准专利许可研讨会,24,交互通讯诉华为等案在美国的 相关案件,交互通讯诉华为等案（ITC） 2013年7月24日，同意华为、中兴、诺基亚和三星（被告）与交互通讯（原告）的共同请求，允许在ITC的337调查案采
33、用的庭审调查信息用于在德拉维州地区法院诉讼。交互通讯诉华为等案（德拉维州地区法院） 2013年11月13日，宣布2103年12月5日马克曼（审前）听证会。,2014/4/2,标准专利许可研讨会,25,FRAND标准专利许可费,Microsoft v. Motorola April 25, 2013微软诉摩托罗拉 2013年4月25日 西雅图联邦地区法院法院根据假设的谈判中合理当事方确定The upper bound (上限) The low bound （下限）修改的乔治亚-太平洋计算法（modified Georgia-Pacific methodology）,2014/4/2,标准专利许可
34、研讨会,26,修改的乔治亚-太平洋计算因素,FACTOR 1 比较已确定的许可费 established royaltyFACTOR 4 拒绝许可情况下的市场垄断FACTOR 5 许可方与被许可方的商业关系FACTOR 68 被许可专利对于双方的重要性， 不包括因标准增加的价值FACTOR 7 专利有效期和许可期FACTOR 9 专利对于改变旧模式或装置的效用和好处FACTOR 10 与专利发明的特点有关的获益FACTOR12 允许利用发明或相似发明的盈利或销售价格FACTOR 13 与非专利要素相比，含有专利要素的可实现盈利FACTOR 15 考虑侵权时许可方与被许可方可能达成的许可费,2014/4/2,标准专利许可研讨会,27,复旦大学知识产权研究中心http:/ 请批评指正 谢谢,2014/4/2,标准专利许可研讨会,28,
