| In the case of Huawei v IDC,the definition of the relevant market,the identification of a dominant market position, the identification of price discrimination,represent our judicial practice and standards essential patents(SEPs) price discrimination latest trial ideas. Therefore,based on this case, we could clarify the current analytical framework to deal with such cases by anti-monopoly law.In the first part, to determine what is the standard essential patents. Summarize the definition and elements of the current standard essential patents related organizations. Each organization has different requirements about what is essential. In the second part, to define the relevant market of SEPs. Summarize the latest developments of major countries and regions’ s legislation in recent years about the relevant market. Research the particularity of standard essential patents related to market definition. In the third part,to identify standard necessary patentee dominant market position. IPR itself as a monopoly right, is not necessarily a dominant market position. We need to combine all factors, operators’ market shares and competitive status,etc. For SEPs,we also need to discuss the technological development of standard essential patents, factors of standards within(external) the system. In the forth part, about the price discrimination,I think we should follow the traditional market transactions on the constituent elements of price discrimination, taking the special factors involved in the standard essential patents into account. FRAND as a tool to use,we should absorb the judicial experience of America involving reasonable license fee factors. What can not be ignored is that the corrupt practices in Huawei v IDC,should be avoided in future. In the fifth part,to discuss if there is justification in SEPs irrational pricing behavior. Four factors necessary for a standard patent Pricing are cited,which can be used as references in antitrust cases. |
PDF Full Text Request