反托拉斯法所規範的層面，大致可將之歸納為結構面(marketstructure)與行為面(Conduct)。前者主要規範獨占、寡占及主要廠商(Dominant Firms)與廠商結合（合併）所形成的市場結構；後者則規範諸多廠商水平的合作行為與垂直限制交易行為。本文之目的，即在探討美國法上，如何致力於「競爭性結構」的規範制度與執行方法，以做為我國公平交易法執法及修法上的參考。研究發現以下各點：1.規模經濟的考量與廠商合併的運作，可謂美國產業結構形成的重要因素。台灣經濟發展的過程中，政府介入程度頗深，寡占與獨占事業多為法令造成。就我國實證而言，發現結構、行為、績效三者間具有高度相關，而競爭性之結構亦較能帶來整體績效最大。我國公平法目前對獨佔及寡占事業僅規範行為面，對建立公平競爭秩序成效恐屬有限；蓋就市場結構之控制而言，在我國多為中小企業之情勢下，獨佔、寡占之問題較諸結合，更為嚴重，在此特殊產業結構背景下，欲建立一真正具競爭性之環境，應自市場結構面(market structure)著手，可考慮賦予我國公平會或法院類似聯邦法院所具之衡平權，使公平會得將濫用市場力量的寡占、獨占事業解體(dissolution)或分割獨占公司之資產以建立另一與之競爭的實體等權限，以重建競爭結構，以建立競爭秩序。2.經濟理論與工具應妥善運用，以符立法本旨，美國聯邦交易委員會及司法部反托拉斯局均設有經濟分析專責單位，我國公平會亦宜指定專責單位，加強產業發展之研究並負責經濟分析事宜，俾針對業務單位進行個案所需，提供相關經濟分析協助。3.美國在規範結合行為方面，係以訂定指導準則方式為之，此法無論對執法機關或事業而言，皆有遵循之標準，避免雙方在執法及適法上產生不確定性之困擾。我國可參考之。4.近來我國貿易自由化進展迅速，企業經營環境已隨著大幅改變,競爭法的實施（如「市場」之定義等）應考量此一因素，才不會失之偏頗，造成國內產業不利損失。附錄：限制營業競爭行為與國際經濟的關係

2004年4月，歐盟執委會頒佈了新的「技術授權協議集體除外規則」及其「指導原則」，以取代1996年開始實施的舊規則。這個規則係在規範技術授權行為於歐體條約第81條下之合法性。其改革所代表的意義，主要則體現於兩個層面。其一，本次改革顯示了歐盟官方對於智慧財產權與競爭政策之關係的態度。其二，則是涉及到歐體競爭法之集體除外制度，乃至於競爭法本身如何更驅現代化的發展軌跡。以前者而言，歐體競爭法在執法思考上傾向於更加尊重智慧財產權之行使；就後者而言，則不論是在競爭規範或執法上，均更強調經濟導向的思維模式。尤其在集體除外規則中設計了以市占率為門檻之安全區制度，將使主管機關更能專注於真正重大限制競爭之案件，並使事業有更大的彈性空間因應日益複雜化的授權實務。 在現今全球化的商業實務，授權活動不可避免地將更具跨國性。因此本文的目的，即在於剖析歐盟新的集體除外制度，希冀提供各界參酌。除此以外，並藉由對歐盟新制的探討，回頭檢視我國公平法對於授權活動之規範。尤其，係對照分析公平會技術授權處理原則之規範說明。希望藉由探討歐盟新架構下的規範思考，亦能夠帶給我國規範或執法上一些新的啟發。 / On 7 April, 2004, the European Commission adopted a new Block Exemption Regulation with respect to technology transfer agreements (TTBER) along with some detailed Guidelines. The new Regulation, which replaces the Reg. 240/96, addresses the evaluation on licensing activities under Article 81 of the EC Treaty. This reform shows the official attitude toward the interaction between Intellectual Property Rights and the Competition Law. Moreover, it demonstrates the path of the modernization of Block Exemption Regulations, and also the EC Competition Law itself. This article will illustrate the framework of the new TTBER with comparison to the old one and the U.S. approach. Furthermore, it will survey our position on licensing practices, especially focusing on our “Fair Trade Commission Guidelines on Technology Licensing Arrangements”. Based on the research, a proposed revolution for Taiwan FTC’s measures concerning the licensing activities will be provided at the end of this article.

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.

不論是反全球化或是支持全球化，我們都無法否認，全球化已經是一個現在進行式。另外一個與全球化一樣逐步成長的乃是市場經濟體制，市場經濟體制植基於開放競爭有助於資源合理分配的觀念，而全球化則擴大了資源分配的範圍。然而，全球化和市場經濟體制的發達，貿易壁壘的消除，也帶動跨國界限制競爭活動的發展，反托拉斯不再是單純的國內問題，而是國際問題。 國際反托拉斯所帶來的問題大致可分為下述兩種，一是阻礙國際貿易的發展，二是因為各國不同的反托拉斯標準造成國際緊張以及企業成本。第一類問題可以細分為下述幾種情況：1. 國際卡特爾破壞市場競爭機制以及消費者福祉； 2. 跨國公司在全球濫用獨占力，影響國際競爭秩序和消費者福祉；3. 競爭法的缺乏以及競爭法的不力執行構成市場進入障礙。第二類問題亦可以細分為下屬幾種情況：1. 國際合併的多國標準造成企業的額外成本，不利國際合併之進行，並造成國際緊張；2. 國與國間產業政策以及競爭政策的衝突。 面對上述這些跨國性的反托拉斯問題，各界紛紛提出競爭法調和的呼籲，此議題近來在各國際組織也漸獲重視。事實上為了處理國外限制競爭行為對國內所產生的影響，以保護本國利益，國內法方面已有所謂的「域外適用（extraterritorial application）」對策產生。但是競爭法的域外適用並無法全然解決現時國際限制競爭行為所帶來的問題，反而還帶來了新的問題，並造成國際緊張。為了在國際案件有效執行反托拉斯法，不論是在卡特爾案件或是獨占力濫用案件，各國競爭法主管機關互相合作與協調都是不可或缺的。至於將競爭法提升至國際法層次，避免國家以非關稅措施破壞自由貿易制度，似乎也有需要。 本文目的在於藉著對競爭法調和現況的瞭解和其成就之分析來尋求目前全球化時代，貿易自由化時代下跨國限制競爭問題的解決之道。 全文一共分為六章，第一章為緒論，為本論文做出開端，闡明全球化時代國際競爭秩序的問題，並提出研究範圍與目的。 第二章研究關於國際競爭秩序的雙邊條約，著眼於美國和歐盟，澳洲和紐西蘭，以及我國和世界各國所訂立的條約。討論範圍為該些雙邊關係所建立之合作內容，其具體成效，成功失敗之因素，以及可供世界各國借鏡之處。台灣部分則著眼於我國目前現狀之檢討，和未來走向之研究。 第三章為從事競爭法調和的區域性國際組織，研究範圍包括歐盟、APEC以及NAFTA。其中APEC所從事的活動較近於政策性的調和，屬於競爭政策的宣導；NAFTA則進一步具有競爭法的實體規範；歐盟不但具有實體規範，並具有一套全球獨步的競爭法執行架構。 第四章為國際組織，將討論UN, WTO和OECD在國際競爭法的發展。UN基本上雖為政治組織，但是對於競爭議題也相當重視；WTO部分則將討論目前競爭議題在WTO體系的進展，並進一步討論WTO進行國際競爭法調和工作的可行性和不可行性；OECD對於競爭議題也一直相當重視，本文將探討OECD在競爭議題方面的研究成果。 第五章為全球性的競爭法規範，討論的範圍有UNCTAD所提出的「管制限制性商業行為的一套多邊協議的公平原則和規則（Set of Multilaterally Agreed Equitable Principles and Rules for the Control of Restrictive Business Practices）」以及DIAC。這兩套全球性的競爭法不但都具有實體規範也都提出一套制度性規範，雖然兩者都未能成為具有拘束力的國際競爭法，但是其所提出的實體規範內容和架構設計仍值得我們做進一步的研究。「管制限制性商業行為的一套多邊協議的公平原則和規則」本身是以聯大決議的形式呈現，因此在某一角度而言，「管制限制性商業行為的一套多邊協議的公平原則和規則」並未失敗，然而DIAC原本乃是預定成為WTO的附件之一，唯最後這樣的理想並未實現，因此我們有必要去問，DIAC的失敗因素為何？是基於其實體內容的設計問題，或是制度面的設計問題？或者是因為其他的外在因素？ 最後，在第六章的結論，本文將試圖分析各種競爭法調和方式的利弊得失，並且提出建議。 / Some people oppose globalization, while others support globalization. However, it is undeniable that globalization is an on-going trend. Another on-going trend is market-oriented economy structure. The structure of market-oriented economy bases on the theory that competition contributes to reasonable allocation of resource. On the other hand, globalization expands the scope of the allocation of resources. However, the proliferation of globalization and the structure of market-oriented economy and the elimination of trade barriers also promote the development of transnational anticompetitive activities. Antitrust is no more a pure domestic issue, it is also an international issue nowadays. International antitrust problems could be divided into two parts. First, the international antitrust activities hinder the development of international trade. Second, different antitrust standards of each country cause international tense situation and increase enterprises’ cost. First situation contains following aspects: 1. International cartels ruin market competition system and welfare of consumers. 2. Transnational companies abuse their dominant power all globally and affect international competition order and consumers’ welfare. 3. Absence of competition law and unenforcement of it constitute market entrance obstacles. Second situation also contains following aspects: 1.Different standards of international mergers bring many results, such as increasing enterprises’ extra cost, hindering the proceedings of international mergers, and causing international tensions. 2. The conflict between industry policy and competition policy of countries. Facing those transnational antitrust problems, the issue of the harmonization of competition law has been raised. This issue is drawing more and more attention in several international organizations day by day. In fact, to deal with the domestic effect of abroad anticompetitive activities to protect national interest, the theory “extraterritorial application” of domestic law has been raised. However, the extraterritorial application of domestic law is unable to solve all the problems that the international anticompetitive activities have brought. Furthermore, it has also made new problems and caused international tensions. To enforce antitrust law effectively in international cases, cooperation and coordination between national competition agencies are unavoidable. In addition, bringing antitrust law up to international law level and avoiding nations ruin free trade system by non-tariff strategy seem also be needed. The main purpose of this essay is to understand and analysis the current situation of the harmonization of competition law and to find out the solution of transnational competition problems in the era of globalization and the era of free-trade. This essay has been divided into 6 chapters. The first chapter is the introduction, which illustrates the international competition problems in the era of globalization and brings out the studying scope and purpose of this essay. The second chapter talks about international competition bilateral treaties between U.S. and E.U., Australia and New Zealand, Taiwan and other countries. The discussing scope contains the cooperation content which was set up by the bilateral treaty, its concrete result, and the reasons of its failure or success. As for Taiwan, this essay focuses on the review of its current situation and where its future is. The third chapter talks about regional international organizations which involve in the harmonization of competition law, such as E.U., APEC and NAFTA. APEC’s activities are more closer to the harmonization of policies, which promote competition activities. NAFTA has substantial competition regulations. E.U. not only has substantial regulations but also has the first set of enforcement system of international competition law in the world. The forth chapter is international organization, which talks about the development of international competition law in U.N., WTO and OECD. Although basically U.N. is a political organization, it also highly emphasizes competition issues. In addition, this chapter talks about the development of competition issues in the WTO system and the possibilities of promoting the harmonization of international competition law in WTO. Additionally, OECD also emphasizes competition issues very much. This chapter also talks about the study result of OECD in the competition issues. The fifth chapter is the global competition regulations, which contains “Set of Multilaterally Agreed Equitable Principles and Rules for the Control of Restrictive Business Practices” of UNCTAD and “ Draft International Antitrust Code”. Both of the global competition laws contain substantial regulations and the design of enforcement systems. Although both of them ended up in unrestrictive regulations, they also deserve further research. “Set of Multilaterally Agreed Equitable Principles and Rules for the Control of Restrictive Business Practices” was brought out with the form of UN General Assembly Resolution, but it is successful in some aspect. DIAC was meant to be an Annex of WTO originally. However this idea was not realized at the end. Why DIAC failed? Was it because of the design of its substantial content or the design of the enforcement structure or other outside factors? At last, this essay will analysis the shortages and advantages of all kinds of the harmonization of competition law and bring out recommendations in the conclusion of chapter 6.

專利聯盟（patent pools）可以創造龐大的促進競爭效益，但是同時也可能產生妨礙競爭與創新之疑慮，若法律完全不對專利聯盟之運作進行規範，專利權人將得以利用專利聯盟制度作為提昇自己市場獨占力量，抑制市場競爭，甚至是濫用專利排他權的工具。為了畫下專利權人正當行使權利之界限，維護專利制度的政策目的，以規範專利聯盟所產生之專利權濫用問題，美國的法制上遂逐漸發展出以專利權濫用原則（patent misuse doctrine）與競爭法（即美國之反托拉斯法），對專利聯盟進行管制的結構。美國法上之專利權濫用原則創設之初係為了限制輔助侵權理論之適用，此理論最初與競爭法制並無交集，判斷的重點在於專利權人是否逾越其權限，之後隨著1988年美國專利法之修正，以及學理實務的改變，現今專利權濫用原則的認定已牽涉競爭法「合理原則」之判斷，然而，許多爭議也逐漸浮現，例如應如何判斷專利權人在專利聯盟中所為之限制競爭行為是否成立濫用，專利權濫用原則與競爭法之間之關係為何，甚至專利權濫用原則本身是否仍有必要存在，這些問題都尚待解決，因此現今正是對專利權濫用理論進行全面檢討之時機。 本文以下將針對專利聯盟所涉及之專利權濫用問題進行研究，對於實務上專利權人利用專利聯盟所進行之搭售、包裹授權、聯合訂價、競業禁止條款等行為進行觀察，並對其所涉及之專利權濫用問題進行初步分析。基於此一研究所獲得之基礎，本文將嘗試指出專利權濫用理論值得檢討之處，並指出專利權濫用理論兼具專利制度和競爭法制之特質，也反映了兩者間之衝突，其亦具有能夠與時俱進，以及反映專利制度政策公益之特質，因此仍有繼續存在價值。尤其係在專利聯盟成員利用彼此間競業禁止協議抑制新生替代性技術發展之情形，法院在適用競爭法合理原則時，往往因為專利聯盟所創造的促進競爭效益，以及新生技術未來發展的不確定性，而傾向認定此種契約條款為合法，忽略其所產生之抑制創新問題，此時即有適用專利權濫用原則之空間。此外，更可以考慮以我國民法第148條所規範之誠信原則與權利濫用原則作為將專利權濫用理論引入我國法之基礎，而在尚未引入以前，對於專利聯盟所涉及之專利權濫用問題，我國實務可以將美國法專利權濫用原則之理論基礎作為操作民法第148條、專利法第60條、公平交易法第18條及第19條以及其他相關規定時之指導原則。本文之意旨並非在完全以專利權濫用原則取代競爭法規範的角色，而係期待實務上應當設法對專利權濫用原則之價值進行重新評估，以賦予專利權濫用原則嶄新之生命，讓專利權濫用原則與競爭法共同形成一個完善、合理的專利權行使規範體系。 / Patent pool licensing can both create enormous pro-competitive and anti-competitive effects. Without legal intervention, the patentee would be able to manipulate the patent pool system as a mean to increase his own monopoly power, suppress competition in the market, and even misuse his patent exclusive power. In order to prevent the misuse of patent rights, protect patent policy and regulate patent misuse issues in patent pools, the U.S law system employs the “patent misuse doctrine” and competition law (antitrust law) to deal with the above issues. The patent misuse doctrine was initially designed to limit the overexpansion of the contributory infringement theory and has no relationship with competition law. The essential factor to constitute patent misuse is that the patentee extends the patent monopoly over the statutory scope of his patent right. Nevertheless, in pace with the Patent Misuse Reform Act of 1988 and the conversion of the legal practice, the patent misuse doctrine has begun to intertwine with competition law’s “rule of reason” analysis. Gradually, many disputes have emerged, such as how to determine whether the patentee’s conduct constitutes patent misuse in patent pools, what is the relationship between the patent misuse doctrine and competition law, and whether the patent misuse doctrine itself is necessary to exist. Therefore, it is high time to conduct a comprehensive review of the patent misuse theory. This article will provide insights to patent misuse issues in patent pool licensing, such as tie-in arrangement, package licensing, price fixing, non-competition agreements, etc, and review the theoretical basis of the patent misuse doctrine. This article will also submit that the patent misuse doctrine is a doctrine which has both the characteristics of patent law and competition law and can compromise the interests of these two areas of regulations. It can also reflect patent policy and grow and change with time. Therefore, it is a doctrine which should continue to exist. Particularly, in the situation which patent pool members use non-competition agreements to suppress the development of nascent substitute technologies, courts would often consider this kind of agreement to be legal because of the enormous pro-competitive effects created by the patent pool and the uncertainty of the future development of the nascent technology. At this moment, it is necessary to apply the patent misuse doctrine to deal with the problem. In addition, the principle of good faith which is encoded in article 148 of the civil code may be an appropriate medium to introduce the patent misuse doctrine into our legal system. Even if it is not yet introduced into our system, the patent misuse doctrine could be the guiding principle for our legal practitioners to apply article 148 of the civil code, article 60 of the patent act, article 18 and article 19 of the Fair Trade Act in order to deal with patent misuse issues in patent pool licensing. This article supports that the patent misuse doctrine should be refined and cooperate with competition law in order to form a complete regulation of patent misuse conducts, but it does not submit that current competition law should be entirely replaced by the patent misuse doctrine.

本論文主要是在探討現行公平交易法第四十五條「依照著作權法、商標法或專利法行使權利之正當行為，不適用本法之規定」，其中有關專利權之部分。蓋專利權屬於智慧財產權之一種，係國家以法律授予私人的一種獨占、排他權利，亦即，專利權人就其所獲之專利請求範圍，係處於一種法定專有排除他人未經其同意而製造、販賣、使用或進口該專利之獨占權能地位。專利法藉由此一賦予專利權人特定期間之專屬排他權 (Exclusive Right)/獨占壟斷權，以提供一定之經濟上利益為誘因，藉此鼓勵發明人『公開』符合可專利要件；而競爭法制係為維護公平、自由競爭秩序與環境而必須規範獨占、聯合、結合等限制競爭行為及不公平競爭行為，兩者之糾結關係應如何釐清？素有經濟憲法高地位之稱之競爭法制，應如何在法律特設專利獨占權之制度目的考量下，揮舞它這把大刀？又法律特設專利獨占權之制度目的，又會如何影響競爭法制規制專利權利之界線，是本文想要探究、嘗試解決之議題亦為本文研究目的所在。 鑑於目前我國對於公平交易法第四十五條之法律定位爭議甚大，復以目前我國對於專利權之正當權利行使行為之實務摸索尚處於萌芽之未臻成熟階段，本文擬以專利制度之制度目的及專利財產之本質出發，再借鏡國美國法制百餘年之行政執法、司法實務之實證觀察方式，試圖對目前我國越來越多之專利權權利行使與公平交易法之交錯相關議題及爭議，提出一些可能的思考方向與解決之道，並以法律體系解釋、法律目的解釋、市場經濟以及專利制度之制度目的等思維角度，嘗試定義公平交易法第四十五條之專利權正當權利行使行為，並將本文所建議之審查基準與審查步驟作成審查流程圖，作為本文之總結。

技術標準化與相關智慧財產權保護，一直以來為智慧財產權法與競爭法的交集與爭議的話題。其中又以標準必要專利侵權糾紛為主。基於標準必要專利權人與前在被授權人雙方的立場，其中目前最具爭議的問題應該涉及禁制令救濟的適用性或以F/RAND授權原則為基礎的抗辯來排除侵權。 標準制訂組織（Standard Setting Organization, SSO）訂定F/RAND授權原則承諾（Fair, Reasonable And Non-Discriminatory）於其智慧財產權政策，要求標準專利權人應以公平、合理且無歧視的授權條件，向所有標準實施者提供授權。F/RAND授權原則承諾之發展，目前趨向於強調專利權人的契約義務，以第三方受益人的立場來平衡授權當事人的談判地位；如何「符合F/RAND授權原則之授權」，目前各國尚未有明文法律解釋，對於F/RAND授權原則承諾之清楚定義與規範，目前僅有法院及競爭法主管機關之見解。 在標準必要專利訴訟中，台灣廠商處於被告之身分的狀況居多。面對禁制令的威脅，如何更清楚地了解目前各管轄法院的看法以決定訴訟或談判策略更是重要。本文整理美國、歐洲及亞洲國家之管轄法院案例，加上對競爭法架構下的標準專利授權規範的分析，最後整理如何讓F/RAND授權原則承諾成為對抗禁制令有效抗辯。希望本文能為涉及標準專利訴訟之台灣廠商提供有價值的參考意見。 / Technology standardization and intellectual property protection has been an overlapping and controversial issue between Intellectual Property laws and Competition Law, particularly when it comes to infringement on F/RAND encumbered Standard Essential Patent, SEP. From both standard essential patent owner and potential licensee’ perspectives, the most questionable issue is whether injunctive relief should be available to the holder of F/RAND encumbered SEP who committed to license on fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory (F/RAND) terms, in order to prevent a third-party implementer from practicing a standard reading on that SEP, when such implementer is willing to take a license but the parties disagree on the terms of the license. Furthermore, the definition of F/RAND has never been clearly defined by statutes or interpreted by any judiciary; interested parties could only refer to decisions or guidelines made by the judiciaries or competition authorities in different countries. It is rather common for Taiwanese companies to face F/RAND encumbered SEP law suits as the defendants. Given the even severer threat of injunctive relief, it becomes more important to understand the position each judiciary takes on this issue to have appropriate strategies on law suits and negotiation. This thesis is accordingly written on the following perspectives: firstly, starting with discussion about F/RAND-encumbered SEP law suits in the United States, Europe and Asia; secondly, bringing in SEP encumbered disputes or investigations into framework of Competition Law from competition authorities among different countries and lastly trying to present possibilities that F/RAND commitment as a cause of action under Contract Law can be applied as defense to overcome injunctive relief sought by F/RAND-encumbered SEP licensors. Meanwhile, this thesis is expected to provide Taiwanese companies valuable strategies to law suits or disputes involving F/RAND-encumbered SEPs.

隨著世界各國開放市場，事業間的競爭已步入國際化，是以競爭法制與政策也必須國際化，然而各國間競爭法規範的調和並未隨著經貿自由化而自然達成。本文點出競爭法與國際接軌的重要性，進一步檢視各國就競爭法案件在單邊、雙邊、複邊等層次將面臨哪些執法上的問題。又因國際反競爭案件越趨頻仍，競爭法主管機關間的合作需求隨之提高，究竟在執法合作上可能面臨哪些困難與限制，未來在合作上發展的趨勢如何，本文將循序漸進加以探討。目前國際間迄未形成一套強勢的競爭法制，世界貿易組織（World Trade Organization, WTO）亦放棄在杜哈談判回合處理競爭議題，然經貿自由化對國際競爭法制仍持續注入新元素。譬如各國簽訂之自由貿易協定與區域經濟整合，多設有競爭相關章節，並開始關注國營事業涉及的反競爭問題（即競爭中立的問題），此等新發展亦屬本文探討之範圍。 / Along with the trend of trade liberaliztion, the competition among enterprises has gone global. However, the competition rules seem to have no chance to reach international coordination in the near future. This article emphasizes that it’s important for a nation to coordinate its own competition law with other countries. Thus, the issues of competiton law enforcement at unilateral level, bilateral level, plurilateral level, regional level, and mutilateral level are also well discussed in this article. Due to the increasing number of anti-competition cases, the need for enforcement cooperation has risen. As a result, this article spends many efforts on recognizing the restraints and obstacles when cooperating with other competition authorities, trying to find the solutions to the problems of cooperation. Despite the fact that WTO failed to deal with international competition issues, there are many ambitious FTAs and reginal trade agreements trying to make common competition rules, which induce new elements into the field of international competition laws and policies. For exaples, TPP and many FTAs are in the negotiation of competitive neutrality requirement in the draft agreements. Such new development will not be excluded when speaking of international competition laws and policies.