德国联邦法院首件基于FRAND原则的SEP专利侵权判决 ——Sisvel vs. Haier一案解析

#本文由作者授权发布，未经作者许可，禁止转载，不代表IPRdaily立场#

来源：IPRdaily中文网（iprdaily.cn）

作者：Aloys Hüttermann IP Hunter

原标题：德国联邦法院首件基于FRAND原则的SEP专利侵权判决 ——Sisvel vs. Haier一案解析

猎评

对于ICT领域的资深IP从业者来说，Sisvel Vs Haier案是近年来SEP海外专利侵权诉讼中颇有里程碑意义的案件，本案的判决对于ICT领域中那些正在经历、即将发起、或有潜在风险卷入到海外SEP专利侵权风险的企业以及相关服务机构而言，意味着在全球诉讼战场上，德国战场对于权利人方（Patentee）和被许可方（licensee）对于平衡双方的许可谈判地位上，将如何把握。

Dr. Aloys Hüttermann, Partner

Michalski • Hüttermann & Partner Patentanwälte mbB

7月8日，德国联邦法院（BGH）新成立的卡特尔参议院公布了其关于FRAND专利侵权诉讼案Sisvel vs. 海尔，KZR 36/17的第一份判决。

On 8 July, the newly created Cartel Senate of the German Federal Court of Justice (BGH) published its first judgment pertaining to the area of FRAND patent infringement proceedings, Sisvel vs. Haier, KZR 36/17.

该参议院作为德国联邦法院的常设参议院，于2019年刚刚成立。此前，每个案件都是由新成立的临时参议院专门进行审判的。然而，随着涉及卡特尔法的案件的重要性逐渐上升，联邦法院才决定在法院组成一个常设参议院。对于所有参与专利事务的人来说，这个参议院的首席法官是一个众所周知的名字——彼得·梅耶贝克教授。他曾是联邦法院专利参议院的首席法官。他的副手，沃尔夫冈·基尔霍夫博士也曾是一名专利法官。

The senate – as a permanent senate of the German Federal Court of Justice – had just been established in 2019. Before, cases were decided on an ad hoc basis by a temporarily senate which had been newly formed for each case. However, with the rise of importance of cases involving cartel law, it had been decided to form a permanent senate at the court. The chief judge of this senate, however, is a househould name to everyone involved in patent matters, it is Prof. Dr. Peter Meier-Beck, which previously had been Chief Judge of the patent senate at the Federal Court of Justice. Also his deputy, Dr Wolfgang Kirchhoff had been a patent judge before.

猎评

卡特尔法（cartel law），也称为“联邦德国反对限制竞争法”，属于反垄断法。

本案由卡特尔参议院做出判决，或许意味着关于本案的裁决，德国联邦法院更多是从避免限制竞争的考量下做出的。

克劳斯·巴赫尔博士被任命为新的专利参议院首席法官。而他留出的空缺职位则被蒂姆·克鲁梅内尔填补，他曾是杜塞尔多夫法院的法官。

As a new Chief Judge of the patent senate, Dr. Klaus Bacher was appointed whereas the new vacant seat was filled by Tim Crummenerl, which – as Peter Meier-Beck before – had been judge at the Düsseldorf court.

背景概要：

A brief explanation of the background:

FRAND是“公平、合理和非歧视”的意思，是指专利持有人有义务在标准组织下提供其技术许可时的条件。

FRAND stands for “Fair, Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory” and refers to the conditions under which a patent holder is obligated to provide access to its technology under a standards organization.

专利权人从根本上有权申请禁令救济。尽管如此，根据德国专利法，特别是“Standard-Spundfass”判决，当专利涉及行业标准时，竞争者除了侵犯专利别无选择，在这种情况下，坚持要求禁令救济有可能被判定为滥用专利权。于是，损害赔偿或者许可的要求取而代之。

A patent holder fundamentally has a claim to injunctive relief. Nonetheless, under German patent law, especially since the “Standard-Spundfass” judgment, it is fundamentally possible when the patent relates to an industry standard, and thus competitors have no other choice than to infringe the patent, that it may be abusive to insist upon the claim to injunctive relief. Instead, a claim for damages or license analogy then comes into consideration.

猎评

standard-spundfass判决，某生产企业A的受专利保护的技术成为该行业的生产标准，某生产企业B为生产该标准的产品，而向A寻求有偿许可被拒绝后，生产和销售该产品，A起诉B专利侵权，请求损害赔偿，而B反诉A限制竞争，请求法院强制许可。核心焦点为，法院能否依据竞争法强制许可B使用A的专利权。

德国联邦法院作出最终判决体现的核心原则在于，因为知识产权限制竞争而被强制许可需要满足两个条件：1. 该许可是进入市场必不可少的条件；2.拒绝许可不具有重大合理性。

这种卡特尔法下确立的禁令救济请求权的滥用行为也在欧洲法律下得到确立和规范，尤其是在欧盟法院（CJEU）的华为 vs. 中兴判决之后。

This abuse of a claim to injunctive relief arising from cartel law is also established and regulated under European law, especially since the Huawei/ZTE judgment of the CJEU.

在移动电话领域，这类行业标准专利尤其重要。所有在此标准方面合作的公司都需向标准组织（ETSI）承诺，允许所有竞争对手在FRAND条件下使用其标准技术。

An additional factor is that in the mobile telephone sector, where such standards are especially important, all companies that collaborate on such a standard have given a commitment to the standards organization (ETSI) to grant all competitors access to their technology under FRAND conditions.

在移动电话领域的专利侵权案件中，被告提出专利权人无权请求禁令救济的异议是普遍做法。在上述华为 vs. 中兴的判决中，欧盟法院提出了确立何时排除或允许禁令救济请求的标准。

For patent infringements in the mobile telephone field, the objection that the patent holder is not entitled to seek injunctive relief is thus common practice on the part of defendants. In the aforementioned Huawei/ZTE judgment, the CJEU established certain criteria for determining when a claim for injunctive relief is excluded or allowed.

在以下情况下，专利权人有权要求禁令救济：首先，“在提起诉讼之前，专利权人已经向被指控的侵权人发出警告，指明被侵权的专利和其被侵权的方式。第二，在被指控的侵权人表示愿意按照FRAND条款签订许可协议后，专利权人向该侵权人提交一份具体的书面许可要约，其中特别说明特许权使用费及其计算方式。”

The patent holder is entitled to a claim to injunctive relief when, firstly, “prior to bringing that action, the proprietor has alerted the alleged infringer of the infringement complained about by designating that patent and specifying the way in which it has been infringed, and, secondly, after the alleged infringer has expressed its willingness to conclude a licensing agreement on FRAND terms, presented to that infringer a specific, written offer for a license on such terms, specifying, in particular, the royalty and the way in which it is to be calculated.”

并且，在另一方面，“如果被指控的侵权人继续使用有关专利，并且被指控的侵权人没有按照该领域公认的商业惯例，真诚地对该要约作出回应——这是一个必须根据客观因素确定的事项，尤其在确定侵权人是否使用了拖延战术方面。”

On the other hand, however, it must be true that “where the alleged infringer continues to use the patent in question, the alleged infringer has not diligently responded to that offer, in accordance with recognized commercial practices in the field and in good faith, this being a matter which must be established on the basis of objective factors and which implies, in particular, that there are no delaying tactics.”

简而言之：在提起诉讼之前，专利权人必须首先与侵权人接触，双方都必须为达成许可做出努力。根据谁在这一过程中犯规，结果可能是专利权人被判无权提出禁令救济请求，或者恰恰相反，禁令救济请求被判在反垄断法下仍然适用。

To summarize briefly: Before bringing a complaint, the patent holder must first approach the infringer, and both sides must make serious efforts to arrange licensing. Depending on who is playing foul in this process, the consequences may then be that no claim to injunctive relief is possible – or precisely the reverse, that a claim to injunctive relief applies despite the antitrust situation.

然而，这套“华为 vs. 中兴乒乓球规则”（“Huawei/ZTE ping-pong”）究竟是强制性的，还是仅仅是一种躲避惩罚性措施的“避风港”？它是否同时允许其他程序的存在？这是一个一直备受争议的问题。德国下级法院倾向于认为“华为 vs. 中兴”的程序是强制性的，而英国的一审和二审法院在其“Unwired Planet”一案的判决中并不认为这是绝对必要的。

It is a matter of dispute, however, whether this “Huawei/ZTE ping-pong” is mandatory or merely represents a sort of “safe haven” while also allowing for other procedures. The German lower courts tend to assume here that the procedure from “Huawei/ZTE” is mandatory, whereas the courts of first and second instance in Great Britain did not consider this absolutely necessary in their “Unwired Planet” decision, for example.

尽管FRAND侵权诉讼已经在德国进行了相当长一段时间了——华为 vs. 中兴的判决就是涉案方向杜塞尔多夫地区法院提起的诉讼——而且在德国下级法院存在大量与FRAND侵权诉讼有关的判决，但联邦法院尚未做出过任何这方面的裁决。这自然赋予了KZR 36/17案件特殊的重要性。

Even though FRAND infringement proceedings have been carried out in Germany for quite some time now – the Huawei/ZTE decision itself concerned a German proceeding before the Düsseldorf Regional Court – and a great number of lower court decisions existed, the Federal Court of Justice had not yet made any rulings, which naturally endows KZR 36/17 with particular importance.

在本案中，在确认了被授权并且在无效诉讼中维持有效的专利受到侵犯后，联邦法院裁定专利侵权人败诉，并允许专利权人寻求禁令救济。

In this case, after confirming that not only the patent as granted but also as upheld in the Nullity Proceedings was infringed, the Federal Court of Justice ruled against the patent infringer and allowed the patent holder to seek injunctive relief.

在这里不可能讨论非常冗长的判决的所有细节，但以下几点值得注意：

It is not possible to discuss all the details of the very lengthy judgment here, but the following points are worthy of note:

1. 虽然没有明确说明，但联邦法院似乎遵循了下级法院的做法，认为“华为 vs. 中兴”案中规定的程序是强制性的。第73段及其后段有力地表明了这一点。

Although this is not explicitly stated, the Federal Court of Justice appears to follow the approach of the lower courts and to consider the procedure from “Huawei/ZTE” to be mandatory. Paragraphs 73 ff provide a strong indication of this.

2. 如果专利权人不想单独许可被侵权的专利，而是将其作为一个专利包的一部分进行许可，联邦法院不认为这是滥用专利权。只要该许可要求“不强迫接受许可者为使用非标准必要专利付费，而且补偿的计算方式不会使希望在特定的、有限的地理区域内开发产品的专利使用者处于不利地位。”

The Federal Court of Justice does not consider it abusive when the patent holder does not wish to license the contested patent individually, but rather as part as a license package, as long as this “is not associated with requirements that oblige the licensee to pay for the use of patents not essential to the standard, and the compensation is calculated such that users who wish to develop a product for a specific, geographically limited area are not disadvantaged.”

3. 与下级法院在Unwired Planet等案件中的裁决不同，联邦法院对许可没有强制性的“统一费率”要求；专利权人在这方面有回旋余地。

The Federal Court of Justice, in contrast to rulings such as the lower-court Unwired Planet decision, does not hold a “flat rate” for licensing to be mandatory; the patent holder has maneuvering room here.

4. 仿照老橙皮书一案（Orange Book）的判决，被指控的专利侵权人有义务明确声明其签订许可协议的意愿。“当侵权人[……]仅仅表示愿意考虑签订许可协议或就是否以及在何种条件下考虑签订许可协议进行谈判[……]是不够的。相反，侵权人一方必须清晰明确地同意依据合适的、非歧视性的条款与专利权人签订许可协议，随后还必须具有建设性地参与许可协议的谈判。”判决的这一条例，以及对下级法院“Unwired Planet”一案判决的引用，被解释为德国实践向英国实践的靠拢。然而，这一条例似乎更多的是确认了先前所要求的被指控的专利侵权人采取清晰、无误的行动方针。而“橙皮书”一案中对专利侵权人的要求则更高，甚至要求其交纳许可费押金。

Following the example of the older Orange Book decision, the alleged patent infringer has the obligation to unambiguously declare its willingness to enter into a license. It is not sufficient “when the infringer […]  merely indicates willingness to consider concluding a license or to enter into negotiations concerning whether and under what conditions it would consider concluding a license[…] Rather, the infringer for its part must clearly and unambiguously agree to conclude a license agreement with the patent holder under appropriate and nondiscriminatory terms, and subsequently must also participate constructively in the negotiations on the license agreement.” This aspect of the judgment, and the fact that the lower-court “Unwired Planet” decision is also cited later, has been interpreted as an alignment of German practice with British practice. Nonetheless, it appears to be more of a confirmation of the previous course of requiring a clear and unambiguous course of action by the alleged patent infringer, whereas the requirements in “Orange Book” were even higher, and even demanded the deposit of a license fee.

猎评

华为中兴案判决中，欧盟法院认为，首先，专利权人为避免被控滥用其市场支配地位，应对涉嫌侵权生产厂商就潜在的侵权发出警告；接着，专利权人应提供一份详细的书面使用许可要约，其中应明确基于FRAND条款确定许可价格的计算方式。依照法院的判决，如果潜在的侵权人提出了书面的反要约，那么专利权人即使完成了上述步骤也不能向法庭寻求禁令。

Orange Book案判决中，德国最高法院在该案中认为，面对专利权人寻求禁令的行为，潜在的被许可人如果能够证明，第一，其已经向专利人作出不附条件的许可要约，且对该许可条款，除有滥用市场支配地位目的外，专利权人不会予以拒绝，第二，其客观表现反映其主观认为其已获合法许可，那么该潜在的被许可人可以反垄断法证明其使用相关专利的合法性。

然而本案中，海尔未作出“不附条件的许可要约”，因此也不能给予卡特尔法来支持自己使用SEP的合法性。

由于联邦法院无法识别被告在收到许可要约后做出了任何适当回应，因此最终批准了禁令救济的请求。这个决定并不完全出乎意料。我们从中可以推断出专利权人的地位有所加强，以及对被指控的专利侵权人认真参与许可的义务的强调。

This aspect in particular was critical to the decision, since the Federal Court of Justice was unable to discern any appropriate response by the defendant here, and thus ultimately granted the claim for injunctive relief. Ultimately, this decision does not come as a complete surprise. At most, however, a certain strengthening of the position of patent holders and an emphasis on the obligation of the alleged patent infringers to participate seriously in licensing can be deduced from it.

Aloys Hüttermann博士是一名德国和欧洲专利及商标律师。他的工作涉及知识产权行业的所有领域，作为Michalski Hüttermann律所的创始人之一，他从律所成立初始就一直任其合伙人，并在它的杜塞尔多夫分所工作。

Aloys Hüttermann博士曾出版过一本有关单一专利制度的书籍，还是一本有机化学教材的合著者之一。他还曾在知名期刊上发表过大量有关知识产权的法律出版物。

Dr. Aloys Hüttermann is German and European Patent and Trademark attorney and works in all fields of intellectual property. Being a co-founder of Michalski Hüttermann, he has been a partner there since the beginning and works from its Düsseldorf office. He is an author of a book on the Unitary Patent system as well as a co-author of a textbook on Organic chemistry and has published a large number of juridical publications on intellectual property in highly renowned journals.

Michalski • Hüttermann & Partner Patentanwälte mbB 是德国最大和领先的知识产权律所之一，在杜塞尔多夫、埃森、法兰克福和慕尼黑设有分所。从小型初创企业到大型跨国公司，我们为国内外所有技术领域的客户提供服务。我们的技术权保护工作集中在专利申请、专家意见、反对意见以及就员工创新相关问题提供建议。一个特别的焦点是侵权案件和与其相关的无效诉讼，特别是有关即将到来的单一专利制度。Michalski • Hüttermann & Partner在设计保护方面也有丰富的经验，并负责管理一些主要的国际商标组合。

Michalski • Hüttermann & Partner Patentanwälte mbB is one of the largest and leading intellectual property firms in Germany with offices in Düsseldorf, Essen, Frankfurt and Munich. We serve national as well as international clients of all technical areas, from small start-ups to large multinational cooperations. Our technical protection rights work focuses on patent applications, expert opinions, oppositions and providing advice on issues pertaining to employee innovations. One special focus is on infringement cases and the related nullity proceedings, especially in view of the upcoming Unitary Patent System. Michalski • Hüttermann & Partner also has extensive experience in design protection and oversees some major international trademark portfolios.

来源：IPRdaily中文网（iprdaily.cn）

作者：Aloys Hüttermann IP Hunter

编辑：IPRdaily王颖          校对：IPRdaily纵横君

注：原文链接：德国联邦法院首件基于FRAND原则的SEP专利侵权判决 ——Sisvel vs. Haier一案解析（点击标题查看原文）

如有想看文章主题内容，欢迎留言评论~

点击图片，查看专题详情！

「关于IPRdaily」

IPRdaily是具有全球影响力的知识产权媒体，致力于连接全球知识产权与科技创新人才。汇聚了来自于中国、美国、欧洲、俄罗斯、以色列、澳大利亚、新加坡、日本、韩国等15个国家和地区的高科技公司及成长型科技企业的管理者及科技研发或知识产权负责人，还有来自政府、律师及代理事务所、研发或服务机构的全球近100万用户（国内70余万+海外近30万），2019年全年全网页面浏览量已经突破过亿次传播。

（英文官网：iprdaily.com  中文官网：iprdaily.cn） 

本文来自IPRdaily中文网（iprdaily.cn）并经IPRdaily.cn中文网编辑。转载此文章须经权利人同意，并附上出处与作者信息。文章不代表IPRdaily.cn立场，如若转载，请注明出处：“http://www.iprdaily.cn/”