本文選題：公平、合理、無歧視條款 + 專利劫持��； 參考：《知識產(chǎn)權(quán)》2017年03期

【摘要】：專利技術(shù)被策定為標(biāo)準(zhǔn)必要專利后,如專利權(quán)人仍可肆意行使其排他權(quán)利會阻礙標(biāo)準(zhǔn)的實施。專利權(quán)人作出FRAND承諾,這意味著專利權(quán)人排他權(quán)利的行使會受到限制。但是,由于FRAND承諾的效力不及于未參與標(biāo)準(zhǔn)制定過程中的第三人,由此可能導(dǎo)致專利劫持問題。適當(dāng)?shù)膿p害賠償額是解決專利劫持問題的根本路徑之一。日本"Apple Japan vs.Samsung"案中損害賠償額的計算前提是損害賠償額等于專利許可費,具體計算符合FRAND承諾的專利許可費時,為防止專利許可費堆疊問題,使用了"設(shè)定峰值法"。
[Abstract]:If patentee can still exercise his exclusive right, it will hinder the implementation of the standard. The patentee's commitment to FRAND means that the exercise of patentee's exclusive rights will be restricted. However, because the FRAND commitment is not as effective as the third party who did not participate in the standard-setting process, it may lead to the problem of patent hijacking. Proper compensation is one of the fundamental ways to solve the problem of patent hijacking. In the case of Apple Japan vs.Samsung, the calculation of damages is based on the premise that the amount of damages is equal to the patent license fee. In order to prevent the stacking of patent license fees, the "peak setting method" is used to calculate the patent license fee in accordance with the promise of FRAND.
【作者單位】： 中國科學(xué)院科技戰(zhàn)略咨詢研究院;
【分類號】：D931.3;DD913
，

本文編號：2086618