中國國內移動通信企業對於標準必要專利與美國移動通信產業知名NPE——InterDigital的初次交鋒就使得InterDigital付出了2000萬元人民幣的代價。而後，發改委對於就高通濫用標準必要專利的反壟斷調查更是開出了60.88億元的天文數字罰款單。 事實上，這些數字不僅起到了吸睛的作用，將人們的目光分分聚焦到中國的移動通信產業，同時，也因為案件發生的時間點而使得很多業界參與者猜測這樣的判決結果很可能是政府發展中國移動通信產業的政策手段。畢竟，自2000年TD-SCDMA成為世界公認的第三代移動通信標準之一以後，中國政府就打著TD產業的發展口號開始著力關注起中國移動通信市場的發展。自2008年奧運會以後，不管是銀行的放款額度還是產業政策的保護力度，都更加凸顯中國發展移動通信產業的決心。 另外，再加上近年來，各大通信巨頭在世界移動通信產業上掀起了大規模的專利戰爭，也使得人們對於專利的關注熱情愈發高漲。尤其是在移動通信產業中起到關鍵作用的標準必要專利，其價值地位也吸引了越來越多的目光。 本文試圖通過梳理TD產業政策演進的過程，來總結出中國自TD產業概念產生之後，移動通信產業發展的各階段產業狀況。再輔以華為VS InterDigital以及高通兩宗反壟斷案來探究產業政策的背後，案件結果究竟對中國移動通信市場的標準必要專利運作模式起到了怎樣的作用。 關鍵字：TD產業、標準必要專利、中國移動通信產業政策、濫用標準必要專利的制約 / For the first time that the Chinese mobile communication enterprise had a confrontation with the famous American NPE in mobile industry——Interdigital, it ended up with the result that Interdigital paid the composition of 20 million RMB. Moreover, China Development and Reform Commission gave Qualcomm a ticket of Six billion after the antitrust investigation of its abuse of Standard Essential Patents. All these numbers not only attracted public concern to the Chinese mobile communication industry, but also make some related participants thought the time of cases happened showed the sentences might be the policy methods to develop the Chinese own mobile communication industry. Since TD-SCDMA became one of the global certificated 3rd Generation Standard, Chinese government has made great efforts to develop the Chinese mobile communication under the banner of development of TD industry. After the Beijing Olympic Games in 2008, Chinese government’s determination in developing the Chinese mobile communication became greater. The evidences were the increase of banks loans and the protection of industrial methods in related filed. Furthermore, the communication giants’ pattern wars in the field of the global communication industry during recent years also raised public attention to the patterns, especially the standard essential patents which played a critical role in communication industry. This thesis attempts to reveal the industrial situations of different stages in the development of communication industry after the rise of Chinese TD industrial concept by sorting out the evaluation of TD industrial policies. Moreover, two antirust cases of HUAWEI VS InterDigital and Qualcomm shows how the sentences affected the operating mode of standard essential patents in Chinese mobile communication industry behind the industrial policies.

法院處理涉外標準必要專利之案件時，經常面臨國際管轄以及準據法適用的問題。涉及議題包含授權契約之成立與效力、專利侵權、違反競爭法等。本文先分析我國涉外民事法律適用法在智慧財產案件上之實務適用情形，認為目前涉外民事法律適用法第42條第1項應僅適用與智慧財產權利內容本身相關之爭議，智慧財產契約或侵權行為案件，則應適用契約與一般侵權行為之選法規則。 其次，本文透過研究日本、中國、韓國、美國、英國等國之標準必要專利案件，探討標準必要專利案件中，標準制定組織的智財權政策與F/RAND承諾，經常約定以標準制定組織所在地法為準據法，因此所生之授權契約爭議與競爭法爭議，包括法院是否有權管轄，以及應該如何適用之準據法。在與F/RAND相關之爭議裡，各國法院鮮少有拒絕管轄的情形。準據法方面，實務上基於當事人意思自主原則，適用標準制定組織之智財權政策與F/RAND承諾之準據法，判斷F/RAND承諾之性質，以及當事人間授權契約是否成立以及其效力為何。競爭法方面，實務上各國皆適用內國競爭法，以決定標準必要專利權人之行為是否濫用其市場地位。 經由比較法與實務案件之分析，本文主張標準必要專利之中基於F/RAND所生之契約爭議，仍應適用標準制定組織之智財權政策與F/RAND承諾中所約定之法律。適用涉外民事法律適用法部分，法院實務判決應更清楚明確定性案件以及適用涉外民事法律適用法之依據與理由，俾使涉外民事法律適用法第42條第1項之意義更為明確。競爭法之部分，由於其強行法規之性質，實務皆適用法庭地法，原則上僅就影響國內市場之涉外行為判斷。此外，就我國立法就智慧財產之國際管轄規定付之闕如，應該針對智慧財產之特殊性增加相關規定。 / In cross-border SEP-related cases, courts often face the problems of international jurisdiction and the choice of law. SEP-realted cases often involve issues such as the nature of the F/RAND declarations and the IPR policies of Standard Setting Organizations (SSOs), the formation and the effect of licensing agreements, and violation of competition law, etc. The thesis starts from the examination of Act Governing the Choice of Law in Civil Matters Involving Foreign Elements in Taiwan. Article 42(1) of the Act should be applied only to the issues related to the content of IP right itself. As for IP infringements and IP-related contracts, the choice of law rules on general infringements and contracts should be applied. Secondly, the thesis further looks into the practice of conflict of law in Japan Korea, PRC, the UK and the US on SEP-related cases, which mostly apply the principle of party autonomy to determine the nature of F/RAND declarations and the nature of SSOs’ IPR policies. As for the competition law argument, based on the mandatory nature of competition law, the court often applied lex fori to the issues. Back to the private international law in Taiwan, the thesis suggests that the court should elaborate more specifically on the process of the court determining the characterization of the case and further deciding the choice of law. Besides, Taiwan should also legislate the law on the international jurisdiction on IP cases.