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.

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.