표준특허에 관한 유럽의 최근 동향 - 특허법과 경쟁법의 대립과 조화의 모색 -

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

Since the Orange-Book-Standard decision(Az. KZR 39/06) was issued on May 6, 2009 by the Federal Court of Justice of Germany(German: Bundesgerichtshof, BGH), a series of recent smartphone-related disputes in many regions and countries have concerned a right holder’s ability to obtain injunctive relief for putative infringer’s infringement of FRAND- encumbered Standard Essential Patents(SEP). There is a decision from the U.S. ITC that if a putative licensee refuses to pay what has been determined to be a FRAND royalty, or refuses to engage in a negotiation to determine FRAND terms, such a refusal could amount to a constructive refusal to negotiate. The Japanese IP High Court similarly issued a decision that an SEP holder can seek injunctive relief against an unwilling licensee though the IP High Court refused to issue a preliminary injunction against Apple in a suit between Samsung and Apple involving SEPs. On the other hand, there are recent decisions from EU Directorate-General for Competition opining that the enforcement of SEP-based injunctive rights could constitute a breach of competition law under certain circumstances in the case of Samsung Electronics and Motorola investigations. In the aftermath of Orange Book Standard, the FRAND defense seemed to be tested successfully in court at least in Germany. But European commission disagreed with that. On March 21, 2013, the District Court of Dusseldorf referred five questions to the Court of Justice of the European Union(“CJEU”) concerning the availability of remedies to the SEP holders. It will be a key point whether CJEU interprets the patent right of standard-essential-patent owner as a proprietary right in the context of traditional patent law or does the enforcement of the right as an abuse of dominant position like a EU commission. Reaching final decision would take time because of the burden which the decision will heavily influence on each court of member states. The point CJEU should contemplate before rendering the final decision is to stick a balance between the unfairness that can cause decrease of incentive to innovation by excluding the injunction right and consequently causing reverse-holdup and the unreasonableness that results in royalty payment for actually invalid patent by forcing the implementer to reserve the right to challenge through unconditional offer.

목차 (Table of Contents)

• I. 서론
• II. 표준특허에 관한 특허법과 경쟁법의 긴장관계
• 1. 표준특허의 독점배타성
• 2. 표준화와 우월적 지위
• 3. 표준특허에 대한 유럽 경쟁당국의 동향
• III. 독일법원과 EU위원회의 표준특허에 대한 판단의 대립
• 1. 오렌지북 스탠다드 사건과 독일 법원의 판단 동향
• 2. EU위원회의 결정
• 3. 소결
• IV. 화웨이 v. ZTE 사건에 대한 독일 뒤셀도르프지방법원의 유럽사법재판소(CJEU) 의견 위탁
• 1. CJEU에 위탁한 5가지 질문사항
• 3. Wathelet 법무관 의견
• 4. 검토
• V. 결론
• 참고문헌

참고문헌 (Reference)

• 1 윤선희, "표준화와 관련된 지적재산권 및 독점규제법에 관한 연구" 2002
• 2 이호영, "표준필수특허 보유자의 FRAND 확약 위반행위에 대한 공정거래법의 집행에 관한 연구" 한국상사법학회 31 (31): 233-289, 2013
• 3 계승균, "표준특허의 법적 성격과 명암" 11 : 2011
• 4 이수진, "표준특허의 Unwilling Licensee와 역홀드업에 관한 연구" 한국지식재산학회 (44) : 97-134, 2014
• 5 이수진, "표준특허와 FRAND 라이센스" 동방문화사 2015
• 6 윤선희, "지적재산권과 표준화와의 관계"
• 7 윤선희, "지적재산권과 산업표준화 및 반독점법 관계 연구" 한국발명진흥회 지적재산권연구센터 1999
• 8 박기식, "정보통신표준화에 있어서 지적재산권 논쟁"
• 9 교재편찬위원회, "미래사회와 표준"
• 10 瀬川友史, "英․独におけるライセンス․オブ․ライト制度およびその利用実態" PARI 2009
• 11 公正取引委員会, "知的財産の利用に関する独占禁止法上の指針"
• 12 紋谷暢男, "注解経済法[上巻]" 青林書院 1985
• 13 知的財産研究所(IIP), "標準規格必須特許の権利行使に関する調査研究報告書(Ⅱ), in 第７節 特許権侵害に対する差止請求の制限に関する解釈論･立法論的提言" 2013
• 14 田中善之, "宣言をなした特許権に基づく権利行使と権利濫用の成否ーアッ プルジャパン対三星電子事件知財高裁大合議判決" NBL 2014
• 15 紋谷暢男, "ノウ.ハウと独占禁止政策" 商事法務 2013
• 16 Jones Day, "Standards- essential patents and Injunctive relief"
• 17 "OPINION OF ADVOCATE GENERAL WATHELET"
• 18 "Guidelines on the Applicability of Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) to Horizontal Cooperation Agreements"
• 19 Philippe Chappatte, "FRAND Commitments - the case for antitrust intervention" 5 (5): 2009
• 20 Allen & Overy, "Court of Justice of the European(CJEU) to Bring Clarity to the Enforcement of Standard-Essential Patents(SEPs) in Europe"
• 21 King & Spalding, "Client Alert"
• 22 "Case C‑170/13, Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd v ZTE Corp., ZTE Deutschland GmbH, Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Düsseldorf (Germany)"
• 23 Damien Geradin, "Abusive Pricing in an IP Licensing Context : An EC Competitive Analysis"