퀄컴 사건의 의미와 시사점
The Meaning and Implications of the Korea Fair Trade Commission’s Decisions against Qualcomm
0
조회
0
다운로드
5
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
The Korea Fair Trade Commission’s (KFTC) two decisions against Qualcomm on it's standard-essential patent (SEP) licensing practices have significant implications for Korea's competition law enforcement. Above all, they provided opportunities for full-fledged discussions on the relationship between intellectual property rights such as patents and competition law in Korea, and clearly recognized the competition policy meaning of the FRAND commitment. The KFTC also sent important signals for competition law enforcement on IP-related issues in the future. First, it applied the same criteria as in cases where other tangible property rights are involved in determining whether the SEP licensing practice is a violation of the Korea Monopoly Regulation Act (Korea Monopoly Regulation Act). Second, it changed its prior position and acknowledged that the SEP constitute the essential element under the Korea Monopoly Regulation Act. Third, it put an emphasis on the breach of FRAND commitments as a basis of finding anti-competitive intent or purpose and anti-competitive concerns. Furthermore, in assessing the illegality of the FRAND commitment breach by the SEP holders, the KFTC did not consider only its impact on the patented technology licensing market and related product markets, but also on the innovation market and the final consumer's welfare. One the other hand, the KFTC did not clearly say that the level of royalties itself imposed by Qualcomm was excessive or unfair. while it found that Qualcomm's conduct in question was a violation of the FRAND commitment by focusing on procedural aspects of the FRNAD commitment. Lastly, the KFTC did not only declare the illegality of Qualcomm's SEP licensing practices, but also impose a licensing obligation with specific procedures for negotiating license terms among the parties.
Abstract
The Korea Fair Trade Commission’s (KFTC) two decisions against Qualcomm on it's standard-essential patent (SEP) licensing practices have significant implications for Korea's competition law enforcement. Above all, they provided opportunities for full-fledged discussions on the relationship between intellectual property rights such as patents and competition law in Korea, and clearly recognized the competition policy meaning of the FRAND commitment. The KFTC also sent important signals for competition law enforcement on IP-related issues in the future. First, it applied the same criteria as in cases where other tangible property rights are involved in determining whether the SEP licensing practice is a violation of the Korea Monopoly Regulation Act (Korea Monopoly Regulation Act). Second, it changed its prior position and acknowledged that the SEP constitute the essential element under the Korea Monopoly Regulation Act. Third, it put an emphasis on the breach of FRAND commitments as a basis of finding anti-competitive intent or purpose and anti-competitive concerns. Furthermore, in assessing the illegality of the FRAND commitment breach by the SEP holders, the KFTC did not consider only its impact on the patented technology licensing market and related product markets, but also on the innovation market and the final consumer's welfare. One the other hand, the KFTC did not clearly say that the level of royalties itself imposed by Qualcomm was excessive or unfair. while it found that Qualcomm's conduct in question was a violation of the FRAND commitment by focusing on procedural aspects of the FRNAD commitment. Lastly, the KFTC did not only declare the illegality of Qualcomm's SEP licensing practices, but also impose a licensing obligation with specific procedures for negotiating license terms among the parties.
참고문헌 (24)
- 권영관, "표준필수특허(SEPs)의 FRAND 실시료 산정 기준에 관한 연구", 지식재산연구, 11(2), pp.147~182 (2016), 한국지식재산연구원
- 윤신승, "FRAND 확약에 위반되는 실시료에 대한 경쟁법상의 규제", 사법, 1(39), pp.3~56 (2017), 사법발전재단
- 오성은, "표준필수특허 보유자의 금지청구권 행사와 시장지배적 지위 남용행위에 관한 EU 사례 분석", 경쟁법연구, 33, pp.285~313 (2016), 한국경쟁법학회
- 오승한, "FRAND 확약을 위반한 실시료 청구의 비합리성 판단기준", 지식재산연구, 11(3), pp.59~94 (2016), 한국지식재산연구원
- 오승한, "표준필수특허권자의 ‘하위 사업자’에 대한 FRAND 위반 행위의 규제", 경쟁법연구, 34, pp.107~151 (2016), 한국경쟁법학회
- 이호영, "표준필수특허 보유자의 FRAND 확약 위반행위에 대한 공정거래법의 집행에 관한 연구", 상사법연구, 31(4), pp.233~289 (2013), 한국상사법학회
- 이호영, "소위 ‘사실상 표준필수특허’의 행사에 대한 경쟁법적 평가 － 2016년 지식재산권 심사지침 개정을 중심으로 －", 경영법률, 26(3), pp.365~404 (2016), 한국경영법률학회
- 홍대식, "표준필수특허 보유자의 특허권 남용 사례에 대한 법적 분석 - 퀄컴 사건을 중심으로 -", 법조, 64(11), pp.272~336 (2015), 법조협회[DOI]
- 홍명수, "특허권 남용에 대한 시장지배적 지위남용행위로서 규제 가능성 검토", 경쟁법연구, 34, pp.155~189 (2016), 한국경쟁법학회
- "공정거래위원회 의결 제2009-281호(2009. 12. 30)", ~ (2009)
- "공정거래위원회 의결 제2017-25호(2017. 1. 20)", ~ (2017)
- "서울고법 2013. 6. 19. 선고 2010누3932 판결", ~ (2013)
- "서울중앙지법 2012. 8. 24. 선고 2011가합39552 판결", ~ (2012)
- "대법원 2014. 5. 29. 선고 2012두25132 판결", ~ (2014)
- Herbert Hovenkamp, "Unilateral Refusals to License", J. Competition L. & Econ, 2, pp.1~ (2006)
- Jay P. Kesan, "FRAND’s Forever: Standards, Patent Transfers, and Licensing Commitments", Indiana L.J, 89, pp.240~244 (2014)
- Anne Layne-Farrar, "Moving Past the SEP RAND Obsession: Some Thoughts on the Economic Implications of Unilateral Commitments and the Complexities of Patent Licensing", Geo. Mason L. Rev, 21, pp.1093~1095 (2014)
- Björn Lundqvist, "The Interface between EU competition law and standard essential patents-from Orange-Book-Standard to the Huawei case", European Competition Journal (2015)
- O’Donoghue, "The Law and Economics of Article 102 TFEU", ~ (2013)
- Joanna Tsai, "Standard Setting, Intellectual Property Rights, and the Role of Antitrust in Regulating Incomplete Contracts", Antitrust L.J, 80, pp.157~ (2015)
- Wong-Ervin, "Extra-Jurisdictional Remedies Involving Patent Licensing", Antitrust Chronicle Vol. 1, Winter 2016, Competition Policy International, ~
- European Commission–Press release, "Antitrust: Commission sends two Statements of Objections on exclusivity payments and predatory pricing to Qualcomm", ~ (2015)
- "Judgment of the Court, 16 July 2015, Case C-170", 13, Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd v. ZTE Corp, 2015
- "United States District Court, Northern District of California, Case 5:17-cv-00220, Federal Trade Commission’s Complaint for Equitable Relief", ~ (2017)