标准必要专利情形下禁令救济的反垄断法规制——从“橘皮书标准”到“华为诉中兴”

发布时间：2018-01-22 08:11

本文关键词： 标准必要专利禁令救济反垄断抗辩滥用市场支配地位华为诉中兴　出处：《环球法律评论》2015年06期 　论文类型：期刊论文

【摘要】：在涉及标准必要专利的情况下,为避免专利劫持现象,保障标准实施者近用标准的机会,德国联邦最高法院在"橘皮书标准"案的判决中引入了反垄断抗辩制度。藉此,在标准必要专利的情形下,专利权人的禁令救济在一定条件下得以限制。欧盟法院就"华为诉中兴"案所作出的先行裁决,提出了"五步骤十三保留"的规则,对反垄断抗辩的成立要件进行了重构。与过于倾向保护标准必要专利权人利益的"橘皮书标准"判决相比,欧盟法院的新规则被认为是更好地平衡了标准必要专利权人和标准实施者之间的利益。在区分为什么要对标准必要专利权人的禁令救济进行反垄断法上的限制,以及在什么条件下可以进行这种限制这两个问题的基础之上,本文通过梳理反垄断抗辩在欧盟以及德国司法体系的历史演变,体系性地介绍欧盟法院作出相关先行裁决的历史背景及其所直面的理论问题,通过比较法的分析,以期对我国具有借鉴意义。
[Abstract]:In case of the necessary patent of the standard, to avoid the phenomenon of patent hijacking, guarantee the opportunity of the standard implementers to access the standard. The German Federal Supreme Court introduced antitrust defences in the judgment of the Orange Book Standards case. The patentee's injunctive relief can be restricted under certain conditions. The European Court of Justice made the "five-step 13 reservation" rule in the first ruling in Huawei v. ZTE. It reconstructs the requirements of the establishment of the anti-monopoly defense, compared with the judgment of "Orange Book Standard", which is too inclined to protect the interests of the essential patentee of the standard. The new rules of the European Court of Justice are considered to better balance the interests of standard essential patent holders and standard implementers. And on the basis of these two problems, this paper combs the historical evolution of antitrust defense in the European Union and the judicial system of Germany. This paper systematically introduces the historical background and the theoretical problems faced by the European Union Court of Justice (EU) in making the relevant first ruling, and through the analysis of the comparative law, it is expected to be of reference significance to our country.
【作者单位】：德国慕尼黑大学;
【分类号】：D913;D912.29
【正文快照】： 一引言2015年7月16日,在业界的期冀中,欧盟法院终于对“华为诉中兴”一案作出了先行裁决。法槌甫一落下,就吸引了全世界关注的目光。该案具有巨大的影响力,不仅因为两造都来自中国,“兄弟阋于墙外”的看点使这则裁决的关注度远播于欧盟境外。更为关键的是,在这则裁决中,欧盟

【参考文献】