IPRdaily，連接全球百萬智慧財產權精英
全球影響力的智慧財產權產業媒體
#本文由作者授權發布，未經作者許可，禁止轉載，不代表IPRdaily立場#
來源：IPRdaily中文網（iprdaily.cn）
作者：Aloys Hüttermann IP Hunter
原標題：德國聯邦法院首件基於FRAND原則的SEP專利侵權判決 ——Sisvel vs. Haier一案解析
IPRdaily導讀：本文來自於德國律師Dr Aloys Huttermann，以深耕IP數十年的德國本土律師的視角，從做出Sisvel Vs Haier案判決的法院、原被告雙方在FRAND原則上的義務、以及案件啟示等幾個方面來分析解讀本案。
對於ICT領域的資深IP從業者來說，Sisvel Vs Haier案是近年來SEP海外專利侵權訴訟中頗有裡程碑意義的案件，本案的判決對於ICT領域中那些正在經歷、即將發起、或有潛在風險捲入到海外SEP專利侵權風險的企業以及相關服務機構而言，意味著在全球訴訟戰場上，德國戰場對於權利人方（Patentee）和被許可方（licensee）對於平衡雙方的許可談判地位上，將如何把握。
Dr. Aloys Hüttermann, Partner
Michalski • Hüttermann & Partner Patentanwälte mbB7月8日，德國聯邦法院（BGH）新成立的卡特爾參議院公布了其關於FRAND專利侵權訴訟案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邦法院的常設參議院，於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，聯邦法院才決定在法院組成一個常設參議院。對於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。他曾是聯邦法院專利參議院的首席法官。他的副手，沃爾夫岡·基爾霍夫博士也曾是一名專利法官。
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.
卡特爾法（cartel law），也稱為「聯邦德國反對限制競爭法」，屬於反壟斷法。
本案由卡特爾參議院做出判決，或許意味著關於本案的裁決，德國聯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·克魯梅內爾填補，他曾是杜塞道夫法院的法官。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.
專利權人從根本上有權申請禁令救濟。儘管如此，根據德國專利法，特別是「Standard-Spundfass」判決，當專利涉及行業標準時，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。於是，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.
standard-spundfass判決，某生產企業A的受專利保護的技術成為該行業的生產標準，某生產企業B為生產該標準的產品，而向A尋求有償許可被拒絕後，生產和銷售該產品，A起訴B專利侵權，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，法院能否依據競爭法強制許可B使用A的專利權。
德國聯邦法院作出最終判決體現的核心原則在於，因為智慧財產權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的濫用行為也在歐洲法律下得到確立和規範，尤其是在歐盟法院（CJEU）的華為 vs. 中興判決之後。
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.
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.
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.
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.」
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.」
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.
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.
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.
It is not possible to discuss all the details of the very lengthy judgment here, but the following points are worthy of note:
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.
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.」
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.
華為中興案判決中，歐盟法院認為，首先，專利權人為避免被控濫用其市場支配地位，應對涉嫌侵權生產廠商就潛在的侵權發出警告；接著，專利權人應提供一份詳細的書面使用許可要約，其中應明確基於FRAND條款確定許可價格的計算方式。依照法院的判決，如果潛在的侵權人提出了書面的反要約，那麼專利權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，其已經向專利人作出不附條件的許可要約，且對該許可條款，除有濫用市場支配地位目的外，專利權人不會予以拒絕，第二，其客觀表現反映其主觀認為其已獲合法許可，那麼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。
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表過大量有關智慧財產權的法律出版物。
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 Patentanwälte 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（iprdaily.cn）
作者：Aloys Hüttermann IP Hunter
編輯：IPRdaily王穎 校對：IPRdaily縱橫君
推薦閱讀（點擊圖文，閱讀全文）
最新！《2020灣高賽攻略2.0版》在此！
了解超凡——通過專業化，實現高質量發展
「投稿」請投郵箱「iprdaily@163.com」。