我国标准必要专利默示许可适用问题研究
Research on the Application of Implied License of Standard Essential Patents in China

专利权是一种典型的私有财产，而标准是具有普适性的公共财产，两者之间存在着难以调和的内生性矛盾。近年来，随着科学技术，特别是通讯技术的发展，标准与专利的结合成为了一股不可阻挡的潮流，涉及标准的专利侵权纠纷也层出不穷。许多专利权人趁机搭上了标准的“便车”，持标准之利器“劫持”标准实施者，或者实施其他违反诚信原则的机会主义行为。我国的《专利法》第四次修改草案引入了标准必要专利默示许可制度，以规制专利权人违反专利信息披露义务的不诚信行为，这也从侧面肯定了在标准必要专利领域内默示许可制度的适用正当性。但是由于缺乏明确的法律规定和统一的适用标准，我国司法实践中出现了许多“同案不同判”的尴尬现象，这在一定程度上削弱了我国的司法权威，阻碍了标准化进程。本文通过文献研究和案例分析，在肯定标准必要专利默示许可制度正当性的基础上，探讨该制度的具体适用标准和成立条件，以为司法实践提供明确的指引，平衡标准化进程中所涉及的各方利益。
Patent right is a typical private property, while standard is a universal public property. There are inherent contradictions between the two which are difficult to reconcile. In recent years, with the development of science and technology, especially communication technology, the combination of standards and patents has become an irresistible trend, and patent infringement disputes involving standards have emerged endlessly. Many patentees take the opportunity to catch the “free ride” of the standard, hijacking the standard implementers with the weapon of the standard, or implement other opportunistic behaviors that violate the principle of good faith. The fourth amendment draft of the Patent Law of China introduces the implied license system of standard essential patent to regulate the dishonest behavior of the patentee in violation of the obligation of patent information disclosure, which also confirms the legitimacy of the application of the implied license system in the field of standard essential patent. However, due to the lack of clear legal provisions and unified application standards, there are many embarrassing phenomena of “different sentences in the same case” in our judicial practice, which weakens our judicial authority to a certain extent and hinders the standardization process. Through literature research and case analysis, this paper, on the basis of affirming the legitimacy of the standard essential patent implied license system, discusses the specific applicable standards and establishment conditions of the system, so as to provide clear guidance for judicial practice and balance the interests of all parties involved in the standardization process.