司法視野下的FRAND原則－－兼評華為訴 IDC案

Analysis of the Principle of FRAND from Judicial Perspective Review of Huawei v. IDC Case

FRAND原則來源於標準化組織的知識產權政策，意指標準必要專利權人“公平、合理、無歧視”地將自己所屬的必要專利授權給所有技術標準的其他專利權人和實施方。然而，由於 FRAND原則自身語言的模糊性和概括性以及為“中立地位”所限的標準化組織在FRAND原則解釋與判斷方面的“不作為”，法院不得不成為解釋和使用FRAND原則的主要平台。中國法院也對如何適用FRAND原則確定標準必要專利許可費有了一個相對清晰的導向。然而，對於FRAND原則的釋明，法院可以更進一步確認和完善標準必要專利權人的違反FRAND義務的責任承擔問題，以從源頭上減少此類案件的發生。

The principle of FRAND, originated from the IP policies of standard organizations, means that holders of essential patents should grant license to holders of other essential patents or implementers of a standard under fair, reasonable and nondiscriminatory terms. However, due to the ambiguity of the FRAND principle per se and the refusal of standard organizations restricted by their“neutral status” to interpret the FRAND principle the courthouses become forums to interpret and implement the FRAND principle. In Huawei v. IDC, the Chinese court for the first time provides a relative clear guidance regarding appliance of the FRAND principle under Chinese laws. However, the court would have taken a step further to create a liability rule for breach of the FRAND principle so as to refrain the occurrence of such a kind of cases at the source.