全球標準必要專利禁訴令之研究

A Study on Anti-Suit Injunction in Global SEP Litigations

系所名稱：科技管理與智慧財產研究所
學位別：碩士
畢業學年：111
指導教授：馮震宇
標準必要專利「禁訴令」是標準必要專利禁制令、FRAND權利金等實體爭議之上，爭奪管轄權的程序法策略。
本論文借助美國PACER卷證與各國裁判第一手資料，完整分析全球十年多來近三十起禁訴令演進。自2012年Microsoft v. Motorola案開啟的禁訴令戰爭，隨著Nokia v. Continental案與InterDigital v. Xiaomi案的反禁訴令策略創新，進一步歸納為三個階段：（一）純禁訴令、（二）禁訴令與反禁訴令之交錯，與（三）預防性反禁訴令。
這樣的分類基礎上，本論文提出當事人訴訟策略快速迭代，「奔向法院」標的從實體判決，轉變為程序法（反）禁訴令主張，進而發展出預防性反禁訴令。此外，德國慕尼黑在專利forum shopping的全球試錯中，成功「逐底競賽」，取代美國第九巡迴法院地區與中國深圳、武漢中院之熱門法院地位，更事實上解決了反X禁訴令無止盡的反制循環。
這波禁訴令競賽看似與台灣關係有限，然而台灣科技業從未缺席於標準必要專利授權談判中。司法實務借鑑外國法制，思考我們的立場與論理依據之餘，應同時注意強制執行怠金過低、難以每日處罰，以及欠缺爭議底層標準必要專利訴訟，不利台灣維護自身管轄權的現實挑戰。

Anti-suit injunction (ASI) is a procedural strategy employed in jurisdictional competition concerning substantive issues of standard essential patent (SEP), specifically injunctive relief (Unterlassungsanspruch) and FRAND rate setting.
This thesis presents a comprehensive analysis of approximately 30 ASI cases worldwide over the past decade, drawing from the PACER dockets and documents in the United States and corresponding sources in other countries. The evolution of the ASI wars can be categorized into three stages. The first stage, known as “pure ASI”, originated with the groundbreaking SEP ASI in Microsoft v. Motorola in 2012. The second stage witnessed “conflicts between ASI and AASI”, exemplified by the leading case Nokia v. Continental. Finally, the third stage introduced the concept of“pre-emptive AASI”, inspired by InterDigital v. Xiaomi.
The study argues that litigation strategies undergo rapid iterations, leading to a shift in the focus of the “race to the courthouse” from SEP substantive judgments to procedural ASI/AASI tactics, ultimately giving rise to the emergence of pre-emptive AASI. Moreover, Munich (Germany) successfully excels in the “race to the bottom,” a trial-and-error learning in patent forum shopping, outperforming prominent venues such as the Ninth Circuit in the United States and Chinese courts in Shenzhen and Wuhan. Munich I Regional Court effectively provides a de facto solution to the persistent challenge of indefinite countermeasures against AXSI.
Despite the perception that the ASI wars may have limited relevance to Taiwan, it is worth noting that Taiwanese multinational technology companies have consistently maintained an active and enduring role within SEP licensing negotiations. To define Taiwan’s position and legal basis regarding ASI/AASI, it is crucial to consider foreign practices. Furthermore, addressing practical issues related to jurisdictional competition, including inadequate enforcement fines, challenges with daily penalties, and a scarcity of SEP litigations, becomes imperative for Taiwan’s effective engagement in this arena.