豐田汽車日前在2015年的CES展上宣布，其所擁有的5600多項燃料電池以及相關專利，都可以在免收授權金下自由使用。這個作法是跟隨著特斯拉去年的相同/類似商業策略而來。在直覺上，這種策略似乎違背了阻止他人進入市場，或是藉著授權金來獲取利益等等之傳統的專利原則，我反而認為這是一種很好的商業策略，這樣做除了可以取得正面宣傳的效果，他們也需要使其他人願意在更大的產業體系中，提供其等之產品所需的支持系統（以汽車產業而言，包括加油站與其他相關行業），並為其等之產品（氫燃料電池與相關車輛）的銷售提供一個更為可行之未來的商業模式。

這種策略是透過累積大量的專利組合，並將其作為槓桿工具來運用，以協助他人藉著建立配套設施與內部相關產業規模，最終使得你的創新產品成為可行的商業產品。因此，在進入一全新的創新領域前，首先要注意的是，充分取得大量的專利組合將會是值得的。其他值得留意的是，第一批「試水溫｣的公司最有可能由未來的產業中收割成果。這是因為每個產業總是自然地轉往盡可能提供涵蓋免授權金之專利的標準上。因此，豐田或特斯拉所提供的專利中，未來將有很大的機會成為標準必要專利（standards-essential patents，SEPs）。

不採用由一或更多個標準必要專利所涵蓋之標準來製造現代化技術產品，例如大多數現代化數位電信產品，是不可能的。標準必要專利與對標準而言非必要之專利（非標準必要專利，non-SEPs），例如保護一發明的設計特徵之歐洲設計專利是不同的。這是因為，公司企業一般來說可以研發不會侵犯非標準必要專利的解決方案，然而他們並無法針對於標準必要專利來進行迴避設計。

標準必要專利是一種特殊的專利類型，因為其等對於所涵蓋之技術來說是不可或缺的。從某種意義上來說，標準必要專利比起其他專利，在其等之壟斷排他範圍效力上是較為受限的，因為其在特定的產業上，會受到反壟斷法的影響。在歐盟的情況中，歐盟委員會（具有非常強之反壟斷權力）已經針對於哪些標準必要專利，可以進行訴訟與管理（授權）而建立了一些指引。同樣地，美國司法部與美國專利商標局，已經針對於可以預期標準必要專利能夠做到哪些事情，建立了一些準則。標準必要專利基本上只能在某些情況下，才可以提起訴訟並基於F/RAND原則（公平或合理並且非歧視性的條款）進行授權。但是，由於標準必要專利所擁有的巨大商業力量，這些限制情況有時是徒具形式的。

有趣的是，本文提及的豐田與特斯拉已經繞過成為標準必要專利的步驟，而讓這些專利成為免除權利金（甚至是基於F/RAND原則下）的開源專利。有人可能會認為這是跟隨其他領域的做法（以往的範例有谷歌與高通）；然而，這仍然是非常有趣的商業策略，因為這是首次由電信和電子產業以外的大玩家來進行。我相信他們在評估策略時，已經認定取得F/RAND條款（基於成為標準必要專利而衍生）對於氫燃料電池與電動車領域任何未來的發展可能會過於沈重，同時也認為自己的專利組合可能會不利於該產業開花結果，進而危及生產線之可能的獲益。另一方面，基於他們對這個產業的整體投資，未來在該產業中之任何其他標準必要專利，都將難以被用來與之對抗（豐田與特斯拉並沒有放棄專利權，只是說這些是免授權金的）。因此，他們可以運用目前所持有的專利組合，來確保自己在未來的任何氫燃料電池與電動車的商業地位。這項賭博是否可以獲得回報還有待驗證，但是有趣的是，由於這些產業變得更加的技術化，取得該產業之智慧財產權組合與智慧財產權策略，對於在該產業中生存甚或是開始進行商業行為來說，將會是越來越重要的。

作者： 郭史蒂夫 歐洲專利律師 現任： 北美智權教育訓練處 ／歐洲專利律師 經歷： Bryers事務所 歐洲專利律師 Bugnion SpA事務所 歐洲專利學習律師 Notabartolo & Gervasi事務所 歐洲專利學習律師 歐洲專利局 實習生 英國牛津大學生物化學、細胞與分子生物系，生化碩士 英國倫敦大學瑪莉皇后學院，智財管理碩士

TOYOTA & TESLA: A few thoughts on open source patents and SEPs
Stefano John / NAIP Education & Training Group , European Patent Attorney

Toyota recently announced that more than 5,600 fuel cell and related patents are available for royalty-free use in its CES 2015 presentation. This follows steps in the same/similar business by Tesla the previous year. This may seem counter-intuitive to the classic principle of a patent - either preventing others from entering a market or earning a profit from royalties. I would argue this is a good business strategy instead, because (apart from the positive publicity they gain) they need to incentivize others to provide a support system in the larger industry (automotive in general, including for example gas stations and other such industries) which requires their products and makes the sale of their products (hydrogen fuel cells and related cars) a viable future business.

This is done by accruing a large patent portfolio and using it as a leveraging tool to help others make your innovation into a viable commercial product by setting up accessory and intra-connected industries of scale. Hence, the first thing to note is that upon on entering a new innovative space, it pays to come well-armed with a large patent portfolio. The other interesting thing to note is that the first companies to “throw their hat in the ring” are more likely to reap gains from the future industry. This is because the industry will naturally veer towards the standards covered as much as possible by the royalty free patents on offer. Thus there is a good chance that some of the patents on offer by Toyota or Tesla may become a Standard Essential Patent(s) (SEPs).

It is impossible to manufacture many modern technological products, such as most modern digital telecommunication products without using technologies covered by one or more SEPs. SEPs are different from patents that are not essential to a standard (non-SEPs), such as European design patents, for example, which protect the design features of an invention. This is because, generally, companies can invent alternative solutions that do not infringe a non-SEP, whereas they cannot design around a SEP.

SEPs are a special kind of patently due to the indispensability of the technology they cover. In one sense, SEPs are more limited than other patents in the scope of their monopoly due to their strong anti-trust influence on a specific industry. In the EU, the EU Commission (with very strong anti-trust powers) has set up some guidelines on which SEP are supposed to be litigated and managed (licensed). Similarly in the US, the US Department of Justice and the US Patent & Trademark Office have set up some guidelines on what a SEP can expect to achieve. Basically SEPs can be litigated only in certain circumstances and licensed on F/RAND (Fair or Reasonable and non-discriminatory terms). However, these limitations are only in place because of the enormous commercial power they have

What is interesting is that in this case, Toyota and Tesla have by-passed the SEP to make the patents open-source (royalty (even F/RAND) free). One could argue that this follows the example in other sectors (Google, Qualcomm being previous examples); however it is an interesting business tactic because it is one the first time it has been employed by a big player outside telecommunication and electronics industry. I believe that they have made a strategic calculation that trying to obtain F/RAND terms (due to SEPs) may too onerous in an industry like any future hydrogen fuel cell economy and that their own patent portfolio may be a deterrent to the industry coming to fruition and making a viable income for their own production line. They have also probably factored in that any other SEPs within the industry in the future will find it difficult to use SEPs against them given their input to the industry as a whole (they have not relinquished the right to the patents, only stated they are royalty free). Thus they could have used their current portfolio to guarantee themselves a position in any hydrogen fuel cell business of the future. Whether this gamble will pay off has to be seen, but it is interesting to note that as such businesses become more technological, the need to have an IP portfolio and IP tactic within the industry become more crucial to survive or to even start it…

Author: Stefano John, European Patent Attorney Experiences： European Patent Attorney, Bryers Trainee European Patent Attorney, Bugnion SpA Trainee European Patent Attorney, Notabartolo & Gervasi Internship, EPO

Facebook 在北美智權報粉絲團上追踪我們