표준필수특허 보유자의 사업모델에 대한 공정거래법의 적용 - 퀄컴 Ⅱ 사건에 대한 서울고등법원 판결 분석 -

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to examine the significance and limitations of the 2019 Seoul High Court judgment on the Qualcomm II case after defining the case as a case of applying the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act in Korea (“MRFTA”) to the business model of the holder of standard essential patents (“SEP”), on the premise that Qualcomm is the holder of SEPs for patents by mobile communication standards. The decision of the Seoul High Court in the Qualcomm II case poses many challenges about how the standards and methods for determining the illegality of competition restrictions when applying the regulations on the abuse of market dominance under the MRFTA to the business model of the holder of the SEPs are structured and, accordingly, what evidence and arguments The Korea Fair Trade Commission (“KFTC”) should present. This is not only a problem limited to the business model of the holder of SEPs, but also a problem that can affect exclusionary abuse in general. In the Qualcomm II case, the KFTC is taking issue with the following three types of conduct. ① Acts of refusal or restriction of SEP licenses to competing modem chipset manufacturers, ② Acts of linking the supply of modem chipsets to mobile phone manufacturers and licenses, ③ Acts of imposing certain conditions in a patent license agreement with mobile phone manufacturers. For each of the acts ① through ③, the KFTC faithfully followed the analytic framework of case law in judging that competition restrictions were recognized by enumerating all factors that can be considered for judging anti-competitiveness by the intent or purpose and the effect, which are two elements of anticompetitiveness suggested by precedent and jurisprudence. The characteristic of the judgment structure taken by the KFTC in this case was that it presented stand-alone judgment elements for each of the actions ① and ③, but also presented judgment elements linking ① and ② acts and ①, ② and ③ acts. The point is that the reinforcement effect was expected according to the linkage between the acts in the judgment of competition-restrictiveness. However, at least at the stage of the Seoul High Court, the illegality of the acts ① and ② was recognized, but the illegality of the act ③ was not recognized, ending up only half successful so far. In particular, the Supreme Court is expected to declare a clear jurisprudence on two issues, namely, the relationship between exploitative abuse and exclusionary abuse, and the related issue of the combined anti-competitive judgment issue. Depending on what clear position the Supreme Court will take on these issues in its ruling on the Qualcomm II case, it is expected that there will be significant changes in the development of legal principles regarding abuse of market dominance and its enforcement in the future. Meanwhile, The U.S. Federal Court of Appeals for the 9th Appeal of the United States issued a ruling not recognizing the restrictions on competition for conducts ① and ② in 2020, but the possible impact on the application of MRFTA to this case should be limited considering the differences in content, system, and jurisprudence between the Korean Competition Law and the U.S. Antitrust Law.