標準必要專利全球授權與專利屬地原則之衝突與調和

The Conflict and Reconciliation between the Global Licensing of Standard Essential Patents and the Patent Territorial Doctrine

近十幾年來標準必要專利之授權糾紛成為專利訴訟的主要戰場。原本專利權人於授權談判之優勢地位，也因「公平、合理、無歧視」的授權約款反讓被授權人有遲滯授權協商的機會。英國最高法院於Unwired Planet v. Huawei案核定全球授權金，緩和了專利權人的不利益，然也衍生諸多法學爭議，並影響專利權與公共利益間的平衡。面對該等法學爭議與權利失衡，本文建議法院於核定全球授權金時宜有妥善之論述與配套措施。當被授權人之產品製造國及部分產品銷售國採行國際專利耗盡時，如法院重複核定授權金即與國際耗盡原則有間；專利之全球授權倘不分標準必要專利與否，亦不區別授權國是否採行國際耗盡原則，可能使被授權人於多國重複支付授權金，難謂無限制競爭之嫌，產生違法搭售疑慮。故本文建議當單國法院核定全球授權金時，倘被授權人之產品製造國採國際耗盡，其他同採國際耗盡之產品銷售國便不宜再納入授權金之計算，以免破壞專利權利耗盡之法制並衍生搭售疑慮。此外法院於核定全球授權金時，對其他國家專利之有效性及侵權與否都屬未知。本文建議法院可責成原告釋明其於他國之專利皆屬標準必要專利，如此一來可降低原告的舉證負擔，二來讓被告有抗辯機會，既能平衡雙方之權益，也較符合國際授權實務。

Licensing disputes over standard essential patents have become the main battleground in patent litigation over the past decade. The patent holder initially held a strong position in the licensing negotiations. However, because of the“fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory”licensing terms, the licensee was able to delay the licensing negotiations. The UK Supreme Court’s decision in Unwired Planet v Huawei to allow global licensing mitigated some of the disadvantages for patent holders, but it also creates a lot of legal disputes and affected the balance between patent rights and the public interest. In the face of such legal disputes and imbalance of rights, this article suggests that the court should have appropriate supporting measures when approving the global licensing. If the country of manufacture and some countries of sale of the licensee's products apply the doctrine of international patent exhaustion, the global license approved by the court will be inconsistent with the principle of international exhaustion. The global patent license does not care whether the patents in suit are standard essential patents and whether the patent licensing countries apply the principle of international exhaustion. It may result in the licensee paying royalties repeatedly in several countries, which may lead to restrictive competition and illegal tie-in sales. It is therefore suggested that when a global license is granted by a national court, if the licensee's product is manufactured in a country that applies international patent exhaustion, the countries that also apply international patent exhaustion where the products are sold should not be included in the royalty calculation so as not to undermine the legal system of patent exhaustion and raise suspicions of tied sales. In addition, the validity and infringement of patents in other countries is not known to the court when granting worldwide licenses. This article suggests that the courts should require the plaintiffs to prove that their patents in the other countries are standard-essential patents and allow the defendants to raise a defense, in order to protect the defendant’s rights of defense and due process.