摘要
FRAND原则来源于标准化组织的知识产权政策,意指标准必要专利权人"公平、合理、无歧视"地将自己所属的必要专利授权给所有技术标准的其他专利权人和实施方。然而,由于FRAND原则自身语言的模糊性和概括性以及为"中立地位"所限的标准化组织在FRAND原则解释与判断方面的"不作为",法院不得不成为解释和使用FRAND原则的主要平台。中国法院也对如何适用FRAND原则确定标准必要专利许可费有了一个相对清晰的导向。然而,对于FRAND原则的释明,法院可以更进一步确认和完善标准必要专利权人的违反FRAND义务的责任承担问题,以从源头上减少此类案件的发生。
The principle of FRAND, originated from the IP policies of standard organizations, means that holders of essential patents should grant license to holders of other essential patents or implementers of a standard under fair, reasonable and nondiscriminatory terms. However, due to the ambiguity of the FRAND principle per se and the refusal of standard organizations restricted by their＂neutral status＂ to interpret the FRAND principle the courthouses become forums to interpret and implement the FRAND principle. In Huawei v. IDC, the Chinese court for the first time provides a relative clear guidance regarding appliance of the FRAND principle under Chinese laws. However, the court would have taken a step further to create a liability rule for breach of the FRAND principle so as to refrain the occurrence of such a kind of cases at the source.
出处
《科技与法律》
2014年第5期884-901,共18页
Science Technology and Law
关键词
FRAND原则
合理限制
许可费确定
善意协商义务
Principle of FRAND
Reasonable Restriction
Calculation of Royalty
Duty of Good Faith Negotiation
作者简介
胡洪（1984-），北京大学2013级博士研究生；主要研究方向：知识产权法。
