>>>welcome visitor, haven't logged in. Login
Subscribe Now Contact us  
Font Size:  A A A Search “Fabao” Window English 中文 = 简体  繁体
  Favorite   DownLoad   Print
 
Huawei Technology Co., Ltd. v. Inter Digital Corporation (appeal over standard essential patent royalty fees)
人民法院报推出2013年度十大热点案件之四:华为公司诉IDC滥用市场地位垄断案(华为技术有限公司与IDC公司标准必要专利使用费纠纷上诉案)
【法宝引证码】
  • Type of Dispute: IPR-->Monopoly
  • Legal document: Judgment
  • Procedural status: Trial at Second Instance
*尊敬的用户,您好!本篇仅为该案例的英文摘要。北大法宝提供单独的翻译服务,如需整篇翻译,请发邮件至database@chinalawinfo.com,或致电86 (10) 8268-9699进行咨询。
*Dear user, this document contains only a summary of the respective judicial case. To request a full-text translation as an additional service, please contact us at:  + 86 (10) 8268-9699 database@chinalawinfo.com

Huawei Technology Co., Ltd. v. Inter Digital Corporation (appeal over standard essential patent royalty fees)
(appeal over standard essential patent royalty fees)
人民法院报推出2013年度十大热点案件之四:华为公司诉IDC滥用市场地位垄断案(华为技术有限公司与IDC公司标准必要专利使用费纠纷上诉案)
[Key Terms]
standard essential patent ; royalty ; good faith user
[核心术语]
标准必要专利;使用费;善意实施人
[Disputed Issues]
Where the user of a standard essential patent cannot reach agreement with the patent owner on royalty fees, is the user entitled to sue in a court for permission to use the patent and for confirmation of the royalty fee?
[争议焦点]
标准必要专利的使用人与专利权人就使用费无法达成一致的,使用人能否向法院起诉要求确定使用费并使用专利?
[Case Summary]
If certain patent technology is generally adopted as a technical standard the patent is called as “a standard essential patent”. The system of standard essential patent not only ensure the patent owner deserved return but also prevent the patent owner from demanding high royalty fees or unreasonable conditions. For this purpose standardization groups developed corresponding provisions regarding standard essential patent license. FRAND is one of them. According to the FRAND principles a patent owner shall undertake to grant authorization at a reasonable and non-discriminatory term...
[案例要旨]
当某项专利技术被作为技术标准采用后这项专利就被称作“标准必要专利”。 标准必要专利制度既要保证专利权人能够获得应有的回报同时也避免专利权人索取高额许可费率或附加不合理条件。为此标准化团体对标准必要专利的授权制定了相应规定。FRAND便是这类规定之一。根据FRAND原则要求...

Full-text Omitted. 

 

人民法院报推出2013年度十大热点案件之四:华为公司诉IDC滥用市场地位垄断案(华为技术有限公司与IDC公司标准必要专利使用费纠纷上诉案)


 广东省高级人民法院
 民事判决书
 (2013)粤高法民三终字第305号
 【案情摘要】华为技术有限公司(简称华为公司)与IDC公司就标准必要专利许可费或者费率问题进行了多次谈判,谈判期间,IDC公司向美国法院提起诉讼,同时请求美国国际贸易委员会对华为公司等相关产品启动337调查并发布全面禁止进口令、暂停及停止销售令。华为公司遂向广东省深圳市中级人民法院提起诉讼,要求法院判令IDC公司按照公平、合理、无歧视(FRAND)的原则确定标准专利许可费率。广东省深圳市中级人民法院一审认为,根据“公平、合理、无歧视”原则,标准必要专利许可使用费率应确定为0.019%。IDC公司不服一审判决,向广东省高级人民法院提起上诉。广东省高级人民法院二审认为,无论是从字面上理解,还是根据欧洲电信标准化协会和美国电信工业协会中的知识产权政策和中国法律的相关规定,“FRAND”义务的含义均应理解为“公平、合理、无歧视”许可义务,对于愿意支付合理使用费的善意的标准使用者,标准必要专利权人不得径直拒绝许可,既要保证专利权人能够从技术创新中获得足够的回报,同时也避免标准必要专利权利人借助标准所形成的强势地位索取高额许可费率或附加不合理条件。“FRAND”义务的核心在于合理、无歧视的许可费或者许可费率的确定。华为公司和IDC公司均是欧洲电信标准化协会的成员,IDC公司负有许可华为公司实施其标准必要专利的义务。关于使用费或者使用费率的问题,双方应当按照公平、合理和无歧视条款,即“FRAND”条款进行协商,协商不能时,可以请求人民法院裁决。人民法院根据标准必要专利的特点,考虑实施该专利或类似专利所获利润及其在被许可人相关产品销售利润或销售收入中所占比例、专利许可使用费不应超过产品利润一定比例范围等若干因素,综合考虑各个公司之间专利许可实际情况的差别,以及华为公司如果使用IDC公司在中国之外的标准必要专利还要另行支付使用费的情况,合理确定本案的专利许可使用费。
 ......

Dear visitor, as a premium member of this database, you will get complete access to all content.Please go premium and get more.

1. To become a premium member, please call 400-810-8266 Ext. 171.

2. Binding to the account with access to this database.

3. Apply for a trial account.

4. To get instant access to a document, you can Pay Amount 【¥200.00】 for your single purchase.
 
您好:您现在要进入的是北大法宝英文库会员专区。
如您是我们英文用户可直接 登录,进入会员专区查询您所需要的信息;如您还不是我们 的英文用户;您可通过网上支付进行单篇购买,支付成功后即可立即查看本篇内容。
Tel: +86 (10) 82689699, +86 (10) 82668266 ext. 153
Mobile: +86 13311570713
Fax: +86 (10) 82668268
E-mail:info@chinalawinfo.com
     
     
Scan QR Code and Read on Mobile
【法宝引证码】        北大法宝en.pkulaw.cn
Message: Please kindly comment on the present translation.
Confirmation Code:
Click image to reset code
 
  Translations are by lawinfochina.com, and we retain exclusive copyright over content found on our website except for content we publish as authorized by respective copyright owners or content that is publicly available from government sources.

Due to differences in language, legal systems, and culture, English translations of Chinese law are for reference purposes only. Please use the official Chinese-language versions as the final authority. Lawinfochina.com and its staff will not be directly or indirectly liable for use of materials found on this website.

We welcome your comments and suggestions, which assist us in continuing to improve the quality of our materials as we dynamically expand content.
 
Home | About us | Disclaimer | Chinese