The Analysis Of Anti-monopoly Law Of “Huawei Technologies Co Ltd V Inter Digital”

On October 28, 2013, the Guangdong provincial higher people’s Court made a final judgment for " Huawei Technologies Co Ltd v Inter Digital”that Inter Digital’s behavior was deemed illegal and it was ruled 20 million yuan of compensation. As China’s first standard essential patent license dispute, the judgment attracted the highly attention of scholars.This paper is written from the perspective of Anti-monopoly law that "raising-analysis of problem-solving questions" arrangement. First of all, on the basis of fully grasping the merits of "Huawei v Inter Digital monopoly dispute", demonstrated the essential patents under each of the necessary technical standards in the field of wireless communication patent licensing market constitute a separate relevant market. Based on the unique and irreplaceable nature of the patent, standard of essential patent holders have completely share, have blocked or affect the ability of other participants to enter the relevant markets and has market dominated status in each necessary patent license market; secondly, analyze the points around the dispute, then definie the standards essential patents under the conditions of the relevant market and analyze whether Inter Digital has a dominant market position that are in violation of fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory principles of FRAND grant essential patents and acts of abusing its dominant market position.; finally, made a number of recommendations for improvement to improve the application of Chinese Anti-monopoly law in the wireless communications market.In addition to the introduction and conclusion, full-text is divided into three parts:The first part is the major case and controversy of " Huawei Technologies Co Ltd v Inter Digital ". By analyzing the pattern of Huawei and Inter Digital in the wireless market, elaborate the abusing of a dominant market position of Inter Digital and the verdict of the case, which extracts the focus of controversy: how to define the scope of the relevant market in connection;whether Inter Digital did have a dominant market position in the relevant market;whether Inter Digital are abusing a dominant market position.Part II is specific analysis around a disputed point from the perspective of antitrust law,. First of all, this case deals with patent technology standardization brought about by the definition of the relevant market and we must clear the basic theory of standards essential patents under the condition of market, then define the relevant market in this case for the Inter Digital on wireless communication technology in every essential patent licensing market in the United States and China.Secondly, by interpreting the meaning of a dominant market position and the standard, then firmly believed that Inter Digital has the ability to control the price, amount and other terms and conditions, with a dominant market position when it has a negotiation on 3G standards patent license with Huawei.Finally, Inter Digital are contrary to the principles of FRAND commitment and has unreasonable pricing and tying abuse of dominant market position in licensing negotiations with Huawei Technologies Co Ltd when,Part is an enlightenment on China’s AntiⅢ-monopoly law of“Huawei Technologies Co Ltd v Inter Digital”. China’s Anti-monopoly legislation on standards essential patent holders, such as the provision of abusing of a dominant market position of the offence was too abstract and international standardizing bodies are also lack of provisions relating to royalty calculations. Based on this, it is available to perfect China’s Anti-monopoly law from the legislative, executive and judicial aspects and improve the suitability of the Anti-monopoly Act. Meanwhile, amend FRAND principles to have a better balance of standard holders of essential patents, standards implementers, and social and public interests of three parties to promote the wide implementation of standards.