Research On Antitrust Legal Issues Of Standard Essential Patent Pricing

In addition to protecting themselves with patents,many multinational groups also charge high licensing fees to maintain their competitive advantage in the industry,which has led to a series of problems such as the abuse of standard essential patents and the exclusion of competitors.International competition already has a trend of "technology patentization,patent standardization,and standard monopoly".Its abuse will affect the fair competition in the relevant market,the healthy development of the market economic order,and the patent development and technological progress of enterprises.The antitrust law and the patent system share common goals,promote competition and innovation,increase economic efficiency,and protect the interests of consumers.How do we prevent monopoly and unfair competition caused by excessive protection of intellectual property rights,and how to prevent the misuse of unreasonable pricing while maintaining the economic interests of standard essential patent holders has become an urgent issue.More and more domestic and foreign antitrust cases involving unreasonable pricing of standard essential patent license fees come into our sights,such as the "Qualcomm sky-high antitrust case","Huawei v.IDC case",and "Xidian Jietong v.Sony case" And "TCL v.Ericsson".Standard essential patents have the combination of standard and essential patents.The number and amount of cases caused by standard essential patents far exceed the traditional patent infringement cases.Most of them are litigation between multinational companies.Anti-monopoly regulations have always been It is a problem that plagues countries all over the world.The number of patent applications in China has been far ahead of all countries,but the number of patent applications in other countries is very small.With the proposal of "Made in China 2025",under the premise of differences in practices and laws in various countries,the The innovation started late,so it is necessary to study the antitrust legal issues of unreasonable pricing of standard essential patents,so as to better protect Chinese enterprises in the face of international environment and patent disputes,especially when they are going abroad.The information and communication industry must improve its core competitiveness and move from a traditional manufacturing country to an innovative country.First of all,this article is problem-oriented,with the idea of ? ? proposing problems-analyzing problems-solving problems.The first chapter introduces two problems reflected in the practice of standard essential patent pricing through cases and analyzes their causes.Taking Huawei 's antitrust complaint against IDC and Qualcomm 's administrative penalty case as examples,the two disputes in the case reflect The problem is also the research problem of this article: Standard essential patent pricing constitutes a diversified consideration factor for abuse,and there is a single method for determining reasonable pricing.The weak foundation of anti-monopoly legislation for unreasonable pricing of standard essential patents,the difficulty in understanding and applying anti-monopoly rules,and the complexity of standard essential patents are the causes of the problems.The second and third chapters respectively analyze the two issues raised in detail,and the fourth chapter gives reasonable suggestions based on our country's practice.The second chapter is the core chapter of this article,which introduces in detail the anti-monopoly law's regulation of the pricing of standard essential patents,which is the unique framework of anti-monopoly law.It is divided into three parts.The first is to analyze the similarities and differences between the Huawei case and the Qualcomm case in determining pricing abuse.Their common considerations include legitimate and reasonable reasons,patent value and contribution,and patent billing basis.The different considerations adopted are the FRAND principle and the subjective maliciousness of the parties.The second is to analyze other consideration factors in determining the abuse of pricing outside the domain,such as the Georgia-Pacific factor,qualified expert testimony,and the controversial theory of billing basis.Analyze the basis of the standard essential patent license fee,that is,whether the license fee pricing basis should be product parts or the entire product,and the corresponding selection of the smallest saleable equipment unit or the entire market value rule.Once again,the analysis is based on the above different considerations.It is the issue discussed in this article to determine the considerations in the abuse process.After identifying the antitrust law that constitutes an abuse of pricing behavior,Chapter III studies how to determine a reasonable standard and necessary patent pricing method,which is the second problem discussed in this article.As well as the three parts of the analysis,there are currently three main methods for determining the reasonable licensing fees of standard essential patents: the assumption negotiation method,the comparative licensing method,and the top-down calculation method.Introduce these three methods by combining cases.In our judicial practice,China often adopts the comparative permission law,which has a relatively simple method and has not been demonstrated step by step.The past pricing samples used as references are also controversial.In response to the research issues in this article,Chapter 4 provides detailed recommendations on both legislation and justice.My view is not to modify the antitrust law,improve the antitrust guidelines,and add economic analysis ideas to the guidelines to clarify the factors of pricing abuse.To clarify the connotation of the FRAND principle;construct a multiple calculation method and consideration factor system in the judicial area,draw on the latest TOP-DOWN calculation method in the United States,combine with the comparative licensing method,if there is no established license fee,then combine the consideration factor system to determine the license fee.