关于标准必要专利许可费确定主体的研究
Research on Determining the Subject of Standard Essential Patent Licensing Fee
DOI: 10.12677/ds.2024.1010416, PDF,   
作者: 赵梦琰:华东政法大学知识产权学院,上海
关键词: 标准必要专利许可费仲裁模式Standard Essential Patent Licensing Fee Arbitration
摘要: 随着标准必要专利纠纷数量日益增加,何为确定许可费的适宜主体这一问题值得研究。一方面,当前实践中,法院是主流的许可费确定主体,另一方面,针对法院确定许可费模式的不足,理论界提出了建立统一国际仲裁机构作为许可费确定主体的想法。由统一的国际性标准必要专利仲裁机构确定许可费确实可以弥补法院在确定标准必要专利许可费方面的固有缺陷,但是统一的国际性仲裁机构难以在短期内建立。当前,标准必要专利许可费确定纠纷还需法院解决。建议坚持市场导向,结合仲裁模式的优点,优化法院确定标准必要专利许可费的方式,保护标准必要专利人的创新动力。
Abstract: With the increasing number of standard essential patent (SEP) disputes, the question of what is the appropriate subject for determining license fee is worth studying. On the one hand, in the current practice, the court is the main body to determine the license fee. On the other hand, in view of the deficiency of the mode of determining the license fee by the court, the theoretical circle has put forward the idea of establishing a unified international arbitration institution as the main body to determine the license fee. The determination of license fees by a unified international standard essential patent arbitration institution can indeed make up for the inherent defects of courts in determining standard essential patent license fees, but it is difficult to establish a unified international arbitration institution in a short period of time. At present, the dispute of determining the standard essential patent license fee needs to be resolved by the court. It is suggested to adhere to market orientation and optimize the way for courts to determine the license fee of standard essential patent based on the advantages of arbitration mode, so as to protect the innovation motivation of standard essential patent holders.
文章引用:赵梦琰. 关于标准必要专利许可费确定主体的研究[J]. 争议解决, 2024, 10(10): 133-139. https://doi.org/10.12677/ds.2024.1010416

参考文献

[1] 崔维军, 岑珊, 陈光, 等. 标准必要专利产生背景、运行机制与影响: 文献回顾与研究展望[J]. 科学学与科学技术管理, 2020, 41(5): 140-158.
[2] 李逸竹. 标准必要专利FRAND承诺之法律性质辨析[J]. 重庆大学学报(社会科学版), 2023, 29(1): 213-227.
[3] Lemley, M.A. and Shapiro, C. (2013) A Simple Approach to Setting Reasonable Royalties for Standard-Essential Patents. Berkeley Technology Law Journal, 28, 1135-1166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef
[4] 宗倩倩. 标准必要专利的全球许可费率管辖权争夺及其应对路径研究[J]. 科技与法律, 2022(1): 26-35.
[5] 祝建军. 标准必要专利全球许可费率司法裁判问题研究[J]. 知识产权, 2020(10): 3-12.
[6] 刘嘉明. 标准必要专利确定困境与出路——“法院-市场主体”二元复合解决模型的构建[J]. 法学杂志, 2021(1): 121-131.
[7] 张卫平. 论诉讼标的及识别标准[J]. 法学研究, 1997(4): 54-65.
[8] 黄武双, 谭宇航. 标准必要专利许可谈判中的“劫持” “反劫持”消解机制研究[J]. 知识产权, 2023(2): 71-90.
[9] 祝建军. 标准必要专利禁令救济的成立条件[J]. 人民司法, 2016(1): 54-59.
[10] 史少华. 标准必要专利诉讼引发的思考FRAND原则与禁令[J]. 电子知识产权, 2014(1): 76-79.
[11] 马海生. 标准必要专利许可费司法确定之惑[J]. 知识产权, 2016(12): 10.
[12] 马一德. 多边贸易、市场规则与技术标准确定[J]. 中国社会科学, 2019(6): 106-123+206.
[13] 任天一. 标准必要专利多边贸易与单边确定: 冲突与应对[J]. 科学·经济·社会, 2020, 38(2): 70-79.
[14] Contreras, J.L. (2019) Global Rate Setting: A Solution for Standards-Essential Patents? Washington Law Review, 94, 701-757.
[15] 郑伦幸. 论FRAND承诺下标准必要专利许可费的确定方法[J]. 法学, 2022, 486(5): 146-158.
[16] 孔祥俊. 我国涉标准必要专利的司法实践及思考[J]. 中国市场监管研究, 2022(10): 39-44.
[17] 祝建军. 标准必要专利全球许可条件的司法裁判研究[J]. 知识产权, 2022(1): 36-49.
[18] 于群, 李娜. 标准必要专利许可费协商机制的探究[J]. 品牌与标准化, 2023(2): 14-16.
[19] 孔文豪. 论自由贸易背景下技术标准的司法确定规则——以市场主导为切入点[J]. 中国发明与专利, 2020, 17(1): 29-34.
[20] 祝建军. 标准必要专利使用费条款: 保密抑或公开——华为诉IDC标准必要专利案引发的思考[J]. 知识产权, 2015(5): 26-32.