在華為 v. 中興專利侵權案的釋疑案中,華為科技代表標準專利人立場,主張如果標準使用者必須做出無條件及不可撤回的FRAND授權要約,並且該使用者已經接受法院和仲裁庭等協力廠商做出的關於FRAND條款的裁決,否則聲請強制禁令執行專利權的權力仍應該受到保障,不應該被限制。然而,中興代表標準專利使用人立場,主張不僅拒絕接受FRAND條件授權之要約應該被視為市場濫用行為,而且禁制令聲請也應該被視為市場濫用行為。
2012年歐盟先後於對於三星公司(註1)與摩托羅拉兩間公司(註2),其利用標準專利在歐洲國家聲請禁制令的行為有無違反歐盟依據歐盟運行條约 (The Treaty on the Functioning of European Union,以下簡稱,TFEU條約)第102條規定(註3),進行調查。2012年12月,歐盟對於三星公司初步調查結果(preliminary view)出爐,歐盟反對三星公司以侵害標準專利對於蘋果產品提出禁制令聲請的行為,並認為該行為有濫用標準專利以及違反TFEU條約第102條之嫌疑(註4)。
Antitrust: Commission opens proceedings against Samsung, europa.eu/ (last visited on 2013/12/30).
Antitrust: Commission opens proceedings against Motorola europa.eu (last visit on 2013/12/30).
Article 102of Treaty on the Functioning of European (ex Article 82 TEC) states that “
Any abuse by one or more undertakings of a dominant position within the internal market or in a substantial part of it shall be prohibited as incompatible with the internal market in so far as it may affect trade between Member States.
Such abuse may, in particular, consist in:
(a) directly or indirectly imposing unfair purchase or selling prices or other unfair trading conditions;
(b) limiting production, markets or technical development to the prejudice of consumers;
(c) applying dissimilar conditions to equivalent transactions with other trading parties, thereby placing them at a competitive disadvantage;
(d) making the conclusion of contracts subject to acceptance by the other parties of supplementary obligations which, by their nature or according to commercial usage, have no connection with the subject of such contracts.” ec.europa.eu/../art82/, (last visited on 2013/12/30).TFEU條約第102條第c款規範禁止企業濫用其優勢市場地位之行為。
Antitrust: Commission sends Statement of Objections to Samsung on potential misuse of mobile phone standard-essential patents, europa.eu/ (last visited on 2013/12/30).
Antitrust: Commission consults on commitments offered by Samsung Electronics regarding use of standard essential patents, europa.eu/.
EU regulators tell Samsung to offer more to end antitrust case, www.reuters.com/ (last visited on 2013/12/30)
See supra note 40.
No 399939-Samung
Federal Supreme Court [BGH], decision taken on May 6, 2009, - KZR 39/06 -. OLG Karlsruhe. www.ipeg.eu/...pdf