Network Sharing and Standard Essential Patents in EU Competition Law Abstract This diploma thesis deals with two issues which are closely linked to telecommunications and its specific features - network sharing and standard essential patents. Actually, these issues are very topical and come out at the forefront of EU competition authorities. The goal of this diploma thesis is to familiar the reader with particular issues and then analyse individual decisions of Commission and CJEU regarding aforementioned topics from the perspective of consumer welfare as one of the main objectives of EU competition law. Therefore, the first part of the thesis provides definition of consumer welfare standard so that the analysis of particular decisions could be performed. The second part of this thesis deals with network sharing. Given the complicacy of this topic, there are defined the individual models and presented some actual cases of network sharing in EU at the beginning of this part. Subsequently, the thesis deals with the interrelationship between telecom mergers and network sharing. After these introductory remarks, the individual decisions of Commission are analyzed. This part is finally concluded with a partial conclusion which summarizing the main outputs arising from performed analysis. The third part of the...

The point of conflict between competition law and patent law is mainly on the objectives of these two policies. Whereas competition law encourages market pluralism, patent law promotes exclusive exploitation of patented-technology by patent holders. Despite this asymmetrical purposes both policies compliment each in promoting innovation, dissemination of technology, and developmentof a vibrant economy. The interface between these two should be treated cautiously since a preferential treatment of one over the other can have adverse consequences in the development of the economy. Admittedly competition law is very crucial in regulating anti-competitive conduct by cartels and monopolies that will affect the interests of the society. On the flip side, the enforcement of anti trust policies should not be overly applied to the extent of eroding the spirit of innovation and investment in beneficial technology. In the face of this aggressive global market, promotion of innovation and competition law are crucial in maintaining a competitive edge. Wherefore a balance must be struck!

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.

No description available.