德國聯(lián)邦法院首件基于FRAND原則的SEP專利侵權(quán)判決 ——Sisvel vs. Haier一案解析

#本文由作者授權(quán)發(fā)布，未經(jīng)作者許可，禁止轉(zhuǎn)載，不代表IPRdaily立場#

來源：IPRdaily中文網(wǎng)（iprdaily.cn）

作者：Aloys Hüttermann IP Hunter

原標題：德國聯(lián)邦法院首件基于FRAND原則的SEP專利侵權(quán)判決 ——Sisvel vs. Haier一案解析

獵評

對于ICT領域的資深IP從業(yè)者來說，Sisvel Vs Haier案是近年來SEP海外專利侵權(quán)訴訟中頗有里程碑意義的案件，本案的判決對于ICT領域中那些正在經(jīng)歷、即將發(fā)起、或有潛在風險卷入到海外SEP專利侵權(quán)風險的企業(yè)以及相關服務機構(gòu)而言，意味著在全球訴訟戰(zhàn)場上，德國戰(zhàn)場對于權(quán)利人方（Patentee）和被許可方（licensee）對于平衡雙方的許可談判地位上，將如何把握。

Dr. Aloys Hüttermann, Partner

Michalski ? Hüttermann & Partner Patentanw?lte mbB

7月8日，德國聯(lián)邦法院（BGH）新成立的卡特爾參議院公布了其關于FRAND專利侵權(quán)訴訟案Sisvel vs. 海爾，KZR 36/17的第一份判決。

On 8 July, the newly created Cartel Senate of the German Federal Court of Justice (BGH) published its first judgment pertaining to the area of FRAND patent infringement proceedings, Sisvel vs. Haier, KZR 36/17.

該參議院作為德國聯(lián)邦法院的常設參議院，于2019年剛剛成立。此前，每個案件都是由新成立的臨時參議院專門進行審判的。然而，隨著涉及卡特爾法的案件的重要性逐漸上升，聯(lián)邦法院才決定在法院組成一個常設參議院。對于所有參與專利事務的人來說，這個參議院的首席法官是一個眾所周知的名字——彼得·梅耶貝克教授。他曾是聯(lián)邦法院專利參議院的首席法官。他的副手，沃爾夫?qū)せ鶢柣舴虿┦恳苍且幻麑＠ü佟?/p>

The senate – as a permanent senate of the German Federal Court of Justice – had just been established in 2019. Before, cases were decided on an ad hoc basis by a temporarily senate which had been newly formed for each case. However, with the rise of importance of cases involving cartel law, it had been decided to form a permanent senate at the court. The chief judge of this senate, however, is a househould name to everyone involved in patent matters, it is Prof. Dr. Peter Meier-Beck, which previously had been Chief Judge of the patent senate at the Federal Court of Justice. Also his deputy, Dr Wolfgang Kirchhoff had been a patent judge before.

獵評

卡特爾法（cartel law），也稱為“聯(lián)邦德國反對限制競爭法”，屬于反壟斷法。

本案由卡特爾參議院做出判決，或許意味著關于本案的裁決，德國聯(lián)邦法院更多是從避免限制競爭的考量下做出的。

克勞斯·巴赫爾博士被任命為新的專利參議院首席法官。而他留出的空缺職位則被蒂姆·克魯梅內(nèi)爾填補，他曾是杜塞爾多夫法院的法官。

As a new Chief Judge of the patent senate, Dr. Klaus Bacher was appointed whereas the new vacant seat was filled by Tim Crummenerl, which – as Peter Meier-Beck before – had been judge at the Düsseldorf court.

背景概要：

A brief explanation of the background:

FRAND是“公平、合理和非歧視”的意思，是指專利持有人有義務在標準組織下提供其技術(shù)許可時的條件。

FRAND stands for “Fair, Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory” and refers to the conditions under which a patent holder is obligated to provide access to its technology under a standards organization.

專利權(quán)人從根本上有權(quán)申請禁令救濟。盡管如此，根據(jù)德國專利法，特別是“Standard-Spundfass”判決，當專利涉及行業(yè)標準時，競爭者除了侵犯專利別無選擇，在這種情況下，堅持要求禁令救濟有可能被判定為濫用專利權(quán)。于是，損害賠償或者許可的要求取而代之。

A patent holder fundamentally has a claim to injunctive relief. Nonetheless, under German patent law, especially since the “Standard-Spundfass” judgment, it is fundamentally possible when the patent relates to an industry standard, and thus competitors have no other choice than to infringe the patent, that it may be abusive to insist upon the claim to injunctive relief. Instead, a claim for damages or license analogy then comes into consideration.

獵評

standard-spundfass判決，某生產(chǎn)企業(yè)A的受專利保護的技術(shù)成為該行業(yè)的生產(chǎn)標準，某生產(chǎn)企業(yè)B為生產(chǎn)該標準的產(chǎn)品，而向A尋求有償許可被拒絕后，生產(chǎn)和銷售該產(chǎn)品，A起訴B專利侵權(quán)，請求損害賠償，而B反訴A限制競爭，請求法院強制許可。核心焦點為，法院能否依據(jù)競爭法強制許可B使用A的專利權(quán)。

德國聯(lián)邦法院作出最終判決體現(xiàn)的核心原則在于，因為知識產(chǎn)權(quán)限制競爭而被強制許可需要滿足兩個條件：1. 該許可是進入市場必不可少的條件；2.拒絕許可不具有重大合理性。

這種卡特爾法下確立的禁令救濟請求權(quán)的濫用行為也在歐洲法律下得到確立和規(guī)范，尤其是在歐盟法院（CJEU）的華為 vs. 中興判決之后。

This abuse of a claim to injunctive relief arising from cartel law is also established and regulated under European law, especially since the Huawei/ZTE judgment of the CJEU.

在移動電話領域，這類行業(yè)標準專利尤其重要。所有在此標準方面合作的公司都需向標準組織（ETSI）承諾，允許所有競爭對手在FRAND條件下使用其標準技術(shù)。

An additional factor is that in the mobile telephone sector, where such standards are especially important, all companies that collaborate on such a standard have given a commitment to the standards organization (ETSI) to grant all competitors access to their technology under FRAND conditions.

在移動電話領域的專利侵權(quán)案件中，被告提出專利權(quán)人無權(quán)請求禁令救濟的異議是普遍做法。在上述華為 vs. 中興的判決中，歐盟法院提出了確立何時排除或允許禁令救濟請求的標準。

For patent infringements in the mobile telephone field, the objection that the patent holder is not entitled to seek injunctive relief is thus common practice on the part of defendants. In the aforementioned Huawei/ZTE judgment, the CJEU established certain criteria for determining when a claim for injunctive relief is excluded or allowed.

在以下情況下，專利權(quán)人有權(quán)要求禁令救濟：首先，“在提起訴訟之前，專利權(quán)人已經(jīng)向被指控的侵權(quán)人發(fā)出警告，指明被侵權(quán)的專利和其被侵權(quán)的方式。第二，在被指控的侵權(quán)人表示愿意按照FRAND條款簽訂許可協(xié)議后，專利權(quán)人向該侵權(quán)人提交一份具體的書面許可要約，其中特別說明特許權(quán)使用費及其計算方式。”

The patent holder is entitled to a claim to injunctive relief when, firstly, “prior to bringing that action, the proprietor has 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 license on such terms, specifying, in particular, the royalty and the way in which it is to be calculated.”

并且，在另一方面，“如果被指控的侵權(quán)人繼續(xù)使用有關專利，并且被指控的侵權(quán)人沒有按照該領域公認的商業(yè)慣例，真誠地對該要約作出回應——這是一個必須根據(jù)客觀因素確定的事項，尤其在確定侵權(quán)人是否使用了拖延戰(zhàn)術(shù)方面。”

On the other hand, however, it must be true that “where the alleged infringer continues to use the patent in question, the alleged infringer has not diligently responded to that offer, in accordance with recognized 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.”

簡而言之：在提起訴訟之前，專利權(quán)人必須首先與侵權(quán)人接觸，雙方都必須為達成許可做出努力。根據(jù)誰在這一過程中犯規(guī)，結(jié)果可能是專利權(quán)人被判無權(quán)提出禁令救濟請求，或者恰恰相反，禁令救濟請求被判在反壟斷法下仍然適用。

To summarize briefly: Before bringing a complaint, the patent holder must first approach the infringer, and both sides must make serious efforts to arrange licensing. Depending on who is playing foul in this process, the consequences may then be that no claim to injunctive relief is possible – or precisely the reverse, that a claim to injunctive relief applies despite the antitrust situation.

然而，這套“華為 vs. 中興乒乓球規(guī)則”（“Huawei/ZTE ping-pong”）究竟是強制性的，還是僅僅是一種躲避懲罰性措施的“避風港”？它是否同時允許其他程序的存在？這是一個一直備受爭議的問題。德國下級法院傾向于認為“華為 vs. 中興”的程序是強制性的，而英國的一審和二審法院在其“Unwired Planet”一案的判決中并不認為這是絕對必要的。

It is a matter of dispute, however, whether this “Huawei/ZTE ping-pong” is mandatory or merely represents a sort of “safe haven” while also allowing for other procedures. The German lower courts tend to assume here that the procedure from “Huawei/ZTE” is mandatory, whereas the courts of first and second instance in Great Britain did not consider this absolutely necessary in their “Unwired Planet” decision, for example.

盡管FRAND侵權(quán)訴訟已經(jīng)在德國進行了相當長一段時間了——華為 vs. 中興的判決就是涉案方向杜塞爾多夫地區(qū)法院提起的訴訟——而且在德國下級法院存在大量與FRAND侵權(quán)訴訟有關的判決，但聯(lián)邦法院尚未做出過任何這方面的裁決。這自然賦予了KZR 36/17案件特殊的重要性。

Even though FRAND infringement proceedings have been carried out in Germany for quite some time now – the Huawei/ZTE decision itself concerned a German proceeding before the Düsseldorf Regional Court – and a great number of lower court decisions existed, the Federal Court of Justice had not yet made any rulings, which naturally endows KZR 36/17 with particular importance.

在本案中，在確認了被授權(quán)并且在無效訴訟中維持有效的專利受到侵犯后，聯(lián)邦法院裁定專利侵權(quán)人敗訴，并允許專利權(quán)人尋求禁令救濟。

In this case, after confirming that not only the patent as granted but also as upheld in the Nullity Proceedings was infringed, the Federal Court of Justice ruled against the patent infringer and allowed the patent holder to seek injunctive relief.

在這里不可能討論非常冗長的判決的所有細節(jié)，但以下幾點值得注意：

It is not possible to discuss all the details of the very lengthy judgment here, but the following points are worthy of note:

1. 雖然沒有明確說明，但聯(lián)邦法院似乎遵循了下級法院的做法，認為“華為 vs. 中興”案中規(guī)定的程序是強制性的。第73段及其后段有力地表明了這一點。

Although this is not explicitly stated, the Federal Court of Justice appears to follow the approach of the lower courts and to consider the procedure from “Huawei/ZTE” to be mandatory. Paragraphs 73 ff provide a strong indication of this.

2. 如果專利權(quán)人不想單獨許可被侵權(quán)的專利，而是將其作為一個專利包的一部分進行許可，聯(lián)邦法院不認為這是濫用專利權(quán)。只要該許可要求“不強迫接受許可者為使用非標準必要專利付費，而且補償?shù)挠嬎惴绞讲粫瓜Ｍ谔囟ǖ?、有限的地理區(qū)域內(nèi)開發(fā)產(chǎn)品的專利使用者處于不利地位。”

The Federal Court of Justice does not consider it abusive when the patent holder does not wish to license the contested patent individually, but rather as part as a license package, as long as this “is not associated with requirements that oblige the licensee to pay for the use of patents not essential to the standard, and the compensation is calculated such that users who wish to develop a product for a specific, geographically limited area are not disadvantaged.”

3. 與下級法院在Unwired Planet等案件中的裁決不同，聯(lián)邦法院對許可沒有強制性的“統(tǒng)一費率”要求；專利權(quán)人在這方面有回旋余地。

The Federal Court of Justice, in contrast to rulings such as the lower-court Unwired Planet decision, does not hold a “flat rate” for licensing to be mandatory; the patent holder has maneuvering room here.

4. 仿照老橙皮書一案（Orange Book）的判決，被指控的專利侵權(quán)人有義務明確聲明其簽訂許可協(xié)議的意愿?！爱斍謾?quán)人[……]僅僅表示愿意考慮簽訂許可協(xié)議或就是否以及在何種條件下考慮簽訂許可協(xié)議進行談判[……]是不夠的。相反，侵權(quán)人一方必須清晰明確地同意依據(jù)合適的、非歧視性的條款與專利權(quán)人簽訂許可協(xié)議，隨后還必須具有建設性地參與許可協(xié)議的談判。”判決的這一條例，以及對下級法院“Unwired Planet”一案判決的引用，被解釋為德國實踐向英國實踐的靠攏。然而，這一條例似乎更多的是確認了先前所要求的被指控的專利侵權(quán)人采取清晰、無誤的行動方針。而“橙皮書”一案中對專利侵權(quán)人的要求則更高，甚至要求其交納許可費押金。

Following the example of the older Orange Book decision, the alleged patent infringer has the obligation to unambiguously declare its willingness to enter into a license. It is not sufficient “when the infringer […]  merely indicates willingness to consider concluding a license or to enter into negotiations concerning whether and under what conditions it would consider concluding a license[…] Rather, the infringer for its part must clearly and unambiguously agree to conclude a license agreement with the patent holder under appropriate and nondiscriminatory terms, and subsequently must also participate constructively in the negotiations on the license agreement.” This aspect of the judgment, and the fact that the lower-court “Unwired Planet” decision is also cited later, has been interpreted as an alignment of German practice with British practice. Nonetheless, it appears to be more of a confirmation of the previous course of requiring a clear and unambiguous course of action by the alleged patent infringer, whereas the requirements in “Orange Book” were even higher, and even demanded the deposit of a license fee.

獵評

華為中興案判決中，歐盟法院認為，首先，專利權(quán)人為避免被控濫用其市場支配地位，應對涉嫌侵權(quán)生產(chǎn)廠商就潛在的侵權(quán)發(fā)出警告；接著，專利權(quán)人應提供一份詳細的書面使用許可要約，其中應明確基于FRAND條款確定許可價格的計算方式。依照法院的判決，如果潛在的侵權(quán)人提出了書面的反要約，那么專利權(quán)人即使完成了上述步驟也不能向法庭尋求禁令。

Orange Book案判決中，德國最高法院在該案中認為，面對專利權(quán)人尋求禁令的行為，潛在的被許可人如果能夠證明，第一，其已經(jīng)向?qū)＠俗鞒霾桓綏l件的許可要約，且對該許可條款，除有濫用市場支配地位目的外，專利權(quán)人不會予以拒絕，第二，其客觀表現(xiàn)反映其主觀認為其已獲合法許可，那么該潛在的被許可人可以反壟斷法證明其使用相關專利的合法性。

然而本案中，海爾未作出“不附條件的許可要約”，因此也不能給予卡特爾法來支持自己使用SEP的合法性。

由于聯(lián)邦法院無法識別被告在收到許可要約后做出了任何適當回應，因此最終批準了禁令救濟的請求。這個決定并不完全出乎意料。我們從中可以推斷出專利權(quán)人的地位有所加強，以及對被指控的專利侵權(quán)人認真參與許可的義務的強調(diào)。

This aspect in particular was critical to the decision, since the Federal Court of Justice was unable to discern any appropriate response by the defendant here, and thus ultimately granted the claim for injunctive relief. Ultimately, this decision does not come as a complete surprise. At most, however, a certain strengthening of the position of patent holders and an emphasis on the obligation of the alleged patent infringers to participate seriously in licensing can be deduced from it.

Aloys Hüttermann博士是一名德國和歐洲專利及商標律師。他的工作涉及知識產(chǎn)權(quán)行業(yè)的所有領域，作為Michalski Hüttermann律所的創(chuàng)始人之一，他從律所成立初始就一直任其合伙人，并在它的杜塞爾多夫分所工作。

Aloys Hüttermann博士曾出版過一本有關單一專利制度的書籍，還是一本有機化學教材的合著者之一。他還曾在知名期刊上發(fā)表過大量有關知識產(chǎn)權(quán)的法律出版物。

Dr. Aloys Hüttermann is German and European Patent and Trademark attorney and works in all fields of intellectual property. Being a co-founder of Michalski Hüttermann, he has been a partner there since the beginning and works from its Düsseldorf office. He is an author of a book on the Unitary Patent system as well as a co-author of a textbook on Organic chemistry and has published a large number of juridical publications on intellectual property in highly renowned journals.

Michalski ? Hüttermann & Partner Patentanw?lte mbB 是德國最大和領先的知識產(chǎn)權(quán)律所之一，在杜塞爾多夫、埃森、法蘭克福和慕尼黑設有分所。從小型初創(chuàng)企業(yè)到大型跨國公司，我們?yōu)閲鴥?nèi)外所有技術(shù)領域的客戶提供服務。我們的技術(shù)權(quán)保護工作集中在專利申請、專家意見、反對意見以及就員工創(chuàng)新相關問題提供建議。一個特別的焦點是侵權(quán)案件和與其相關的無效訴訟，特別是有關即將到來的單一專利制度。Michalski ? Hüttermann & Partner在設計保護方面也有豐富的經(jīng)驗，并負責管理一些主要的國際商標組合。

Michalski ? Hüttermann & Partner Patentanw?lte mbB is one of the largest and leading intellectual property firms in Germany with offices in Düsseldorf, Essen, Frankfurt and Munich. We serve national as well as international clients of all technical areas, from small start-ups to large multinational cooperations. Our technical protection rights work focuses on patent applications, expert opinions, oppositions and providing advice on issues pertaining to employee innovations. One special focus is on infringement cases and the related nullity proceedings, especially in view of the upcoming Unitary Patent System. Michalski ? Hüttermann & Partner also has extensive experience in design protection and oversees some major international trademark portfolios.

來源：IPRdaily中文網(wǎng)（iprdaily.cn）

作者：Aloys Hüttermann IP Hunter

編輯：IPRdaily王穎          校對：IPRdaily縱橫君

注：原文鏈接：德國聯(lián)邦法院首件基于FRAND原則的SEP專利侵權(quán)判決 ——Sisvel vs. Haier一案解析（點擊標題查看原文）

如有想看文章主題內(nèi)容，歡迎留言評論~

點擊圖片，查看專題詳情！

「關于IPRdaily」

IPRdaily是具有全球影響力的知識產(chǎn)權(quán)媒體，致力于連接全球知識產(chǎn)權(quán)與科技創(chuàng)新人才。匯聚了來自于中國、美國、歐洲、俄羅斯、以色列、澳大利亞、新加坡、日本、韓國等15個國家和地區(qū)的高科技公司及成長型科技企業(yè)的管理者及科技研發(fā)或知識產(chǎn)權(quán)負責人，還有來自政府、律師及代理事務所、研發(fā)或服務機構(gòu)的全球近100萬用戶（國內(nèi)70余萬+海外近30萬），2019年全年全網(wǎng)頁面瀏覽量已經(jīng)突破過億次傳播。

（英文官網(wǎng)：iprdaily.com  中文官網(wǎng)：iprdaily.cn） 

本文來自IPRdaily中文網(wǎng)（iprdaily.cn）并經(jīng)IPRdaily.cn中文網(wǎng)編輯。轉(zhuǎn)載此文章須經(jīng)權(quán)利人同意，并附上出處與作者信息。文章不代表IPRdaily.cn立場，如若轉(zhuǎn)載，請注明出處：“http://globalwellnesspartner.com/”