本文選題：標(biāo)準(zhǔn)必要專利　切入點(diǎn)：互交數(shù)字相關(guān)市場　出處：《西南政法大學(xué)》2015年碩士論文　論文類型：學(xué)位論文

【摘要】：2013年10月28日,廣東省高院就“華為公司訴互交數(shù)字公司壟斷案”作出終審判決,認(rèn)定互交數(shù)字公司的行為違法,判決其向華為公司賠償2千萬元。作為我國首例就標(biāo)準(zhǔn)必要專利許可引發(fā)的糾紛,該判決一作出即引起了學(xué)界的高度關(guān)注。本文主要從反壟斷法的視角,采取“提出問題——分析問題——解決問題”的思路安排寫作。首先,在充分把握“華為訴互交數(shù)字壟斷糾紛”案情基礎(chǔ)上,論證了在無線通信領(lǐng)域技術(shù)標(biāo)準(zhǔn)化條件下每個必要專利許可市場,皆組成一個完整、獨(dú)立的相關(guān)市場。鑒于專利的獨(dú)一與無法替換特征,必要專利持有人在每個必要專利許可市場都占據(jù)完全份額,擁有可以阻擋、控制其他參與主體進(jìn)入相關(guān)市場的能力,具有市場支配地位;其次,圍繞案件爭議點(diǎn)進(jìn)行分析,繼而界定標(biāo)準(zhǔn)必要專利條件下的相關(guān)市場,分析互交數(shù)字公司是否擁有市場支配地位,有無違反FRAND規(guī)則授予其必要專利,濫用其市場支配地位的行為;最后,提出一些改進(jìn)建議,提高中國《反壟斷法》在無線通信市場中的適用。全文除引言和結(jié)論外,共分三部分進(jìn)行論述:第一部分“華為訴互交數(shù)字案”主要案情及爭議點(diǎn)。經(jīng)過對華為和互交數(shù)字公司在無線通信市場格局的分析,闡述華為訴互交數(shù)字公司壟斷糾紛案件的經(jīng)過及判決結(jié)果,從而提取出案件的爭議焦點(diǎn):怎樣界定相關(guān)市場的范圍;互交數(shù)字公司在相關(guān)市場中是不是擁有市場支配地位;互交數(shù)字公司是不是濫用了市場支配地位。第二部分以反壟斷法為視角,圍繞爭議點(diǎn)進(jìn)行具體分析。首先,本案涉及專利技術(shù)標(biāo)準(zhǔn)化所引發(fā)的相關(guān)市場之界定問題,必須明晰標(biāo)準(zhǔn)必要專利條件下相關(guān)市場的基本理論,進(jìn)而界定本案相關(guān)市場為互交數(shù)字在中美兩國就無線通信技術(shù)標(biāo)準(zhǔn)下的每個必要專利許可市場。其次,通過闡釋市場支配地位的含義及認(rèn)定標(biāo)準(zhǔn),從而認(rèn)定互交數(shù)字在與華為公司進(jìn)行標(biāo)準(zhǔn)必要專利許可商洽過程中,具有單方面決定華為公司價錢、數(shù)目以及其他交易條件的能力,擁有市場支配地位。最后,互交數(shù)字在與華為公司進(jìn)行許可商洽時,違背FRAND規(guī)則的承諾,存在不合理定價與捆綁搭售等濫用市場支配地位的行為。第三部分“華為訴互交數(shù)字案”對我國反壟斷法的啟示。當(dāng)前我國反壟斷立法關(guān)于標(biāo)準(zhǔn)必要專利持有人濫用市場支配地位等違法行為的規(guī)定過于抽象,國際標(biāo)準(zhǔn)化機(jī)構(gòu)也缺乏關(guān)于許可使用費(fèi)計算的規(guī)定�；诖�,可以從立法、執(zhí)法與司法三個方面來完善我國反壟斷法制,提高《反壟斷法》的適用性。同時,修正FRAND規(guī)則,構(gòu)建科學(xué)、完備的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)必要專利許可制度,更好地平衡標(biāo)準(zhǔn)必要專利持有人、標(biāo)準(zhǔn)實(shí)施者以及社會公眾三方的權(quán)益,廣泛推進(jìn)標(biāo)準(zhǔn)實(shí)施。
[Abstract]:In October 28th 2013, the Guangdong Provincial High Court handed down a final judgment in the case of "Huawei Company v. Mutual Digital Company Monopoly," and found that the act of interleaving digital companies was illegal. As the first dispute over the necessary standard patent license in China, this decision has aroused great concern in the academic community. This article mainly focuses on the perspective of antitrust law. First of all, on the basis of fully grasping the case of "Huawei v. Mutual Digital Monopoly dispute", It is demonstrated that, under the condition of technical standardization in the field of wireless communication, every necessary patent license market constitutes a complete and independent relevant market. In view of the unique and irreplaceable characteristics of the patent, The necessary patent holder occupies a full share in every necessary patent license market, has the ability to block and control the other participants to enter the relevant market, and has the market dominant position. Secondly, the article analyzes the dispute point of the case. Then define the relevant market under the condition of standard necessary patent, analyze whether the digital company has the dominant position in the market, whether it has violated the FRAND rules to grant it the necessary patent, and abuse its market dominant position; finally, Some suggestions are put forward to improve the application of China's Anti-monopoly Law in the wireless communication market. It is divided into three parts: the first part, "Huawei v. reciprocal digital case", the main facts and points of dispute. After the analysis of Huawei and the mutual digital company in the wireless communication market structure, This paper expounds the process and the judgment result of the monopoly dispute case of Huawei v. Mutual Digital Company, so as to extract the dispute focus of the case: how to define the scope of the relevant market, whether the interleaving digital company has the market dominant position in the related market, and how to define the scope of the related market. In the second part, from the perspective of anti-monopoly law, the author makes a specific analysis of the dispute points. First, this case involves the definition of the relevant market caused by the standardization of patent technology. It is necessary to clarify the basic theory of the relevant market under the condition of standard essential patent, and then define the relevant market in this case as each necessary patent license market under the standards of wireless communication technology between China and the United States. By explaining the meaning of market dominance and the criteria for determining the market dominance, it is concluded that in the course of conducting negotiations with Huawei on the necessary standard patent licenses, it is possible to determine the price, number and other trading conditions of Huawei unilaterally, Has a dominant market position. Finally, when negotiating with Huawei in licensing, the interleaving figures violate the FRAND rules, There is abuse of market dominant position such as unreasonable pricing and bundling, etc. The third part "Huawei v. reciprocal figures case" has implications for china's anti-monopoly law. Current anti-monopoly legislation in china about standard necessary patent holders. The provisions on abuse of market dominance and other illegal acts are too abstract. Based on this, we can perfect the anti-monopoly law system in our country from three aspects: legislation, law enforcement and judicature, and improve the applicability of Anti-monopoly Law. At the same time, we should amend the FRAND rules. Constructing a scientific and complete system of standard necessary patent licensing, balancing the rights and interests of standard essential patent holders, standard implementers and the public, and promoting the implementation of standards widely.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：西南政法大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2015
【分類號】：D922.294

【相似文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 楊華權(quán);;論必要專利的評估[J];科技與法律;2010年05期

2 王學(xué)先;楊異;;技術(shù)標(biāo)準(zhǔn)中必要專利的認(rèn)定[J];沈陽農(nóng)業(yè)大學(xué)學(xué)報(社會科學(xué)版);2010年04期

3 那英;;技術(shù)標(biāo)準(zhǔn)中的必要專利研究[J];知識產(chǎn)權(quán);2010年06期

4 何雋;;技術(shù)標(biāo)準(zhǔn)中必要專利問題再研究[J];知識產(chǎn)權(quán);2011年02期

5 何雋;;技術(shù)標(biāo)準(zhǔn)中必要專利的獨(dú)立評估機(jī)制[J];科技與法律;2011年03期

6 王學(xué)先;楊異;;技術(shù)標(biāo)準(zhǔn)中必要專利的認(rèn)定[J];學(xué)術(shù)論壇;2011年10期

7 楊華權(quán);;論必要專利的評估途徑[J];電子知識產(chǎn)權(quán);2010年05期

8 王鑫;;標(biāo)準(zhǔn)化組織專利政策中關(guān)于必要專利的基本問題研究[J];法制與社會;2009年15期

9 李燕華;;各國在必要專利的禁令救濟(jì)中對反壟斷法的適用[J];法制與社會;2014年04期

10 葉若思;祝建軍;陳文全;葉艷;;關(guān)于標(biāo)準(zhǔn)必要專利中反壟斷及FRAND原則司法適用的調(diào)研[J];知識產(chǎn)權(quán)法研究;2013年02期

相關(guān)會議論文 前1條

1 付圓媛;牛爽;郝政宇;;如何利用反壟斷制度應(yīng)對標(biāo)準(zhǔn)必要專利權(quán)的濫用[A];提升知識產(chǎn)權(quán)服務(wù)能力 促進(jìn)創(chuàng)新驅(qū)動發(fā)展戰(zhàn)略——2014年中華全國專利代理人協(xié)會年會第五屆知識產(chǎn)權(quán)論壇優(yōu)秀論文集[C];2014年

相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前2條

1 王瑋;技術(shù)標(biāo)準(zhǔn)中必要專利的認(rèn)定[D];華中科技大學(xué);2012年

2 房佳佳;“華為訴互交數(shù)字案”的反壟斷法分析[D];西南政法大學(xué);2015年

，

本文編號：1588913