? ? ?美國聯(lián)邦貿(mào)易委員會（FTC）和美國司法部（DOJ）就《關(guān)于知識產(chǎn)權(quán)許可的反壟斷指南》修訂案（以下簡稱“《指南》”）征求公眾意見。《指南》于1995年頒布，體現(xiàn)了FTC和DOJ關(guān)于專利、版權(quán)、商業(yè)秘密等知識產(chǎn)權(quán)許可的反壟斷執(zhí)法政策，現(xiàn)在面臨修訂。

在過去的20多年里，《指南》已經(jīng)為企業(yè)和公眾就可能出現(xiàn)在知識產(chǎn)權(quán)許可中的潛在的反壟斷問題提供了指導(dǎo)。在2007的聯(lián)合報(bào)告《反壟斷執(zhí)法與知識產(chǎn)權(quán)：促進(jìn)創(chuàng)新和競爭（反壟斷知識產(chǎn)權(quán)報(bào)告）》中，機(jī)構(gòu)重申了《指南》在分析反壟斷和知識產(chǎn)權(quán)問題中的必要作用。此次修訂旨在不改變機(jī)構(gòu)關(guān)于知識產(chǎn)權(quán)許可的執(zhí)法方式前提下，使《指南》更加現(xiàn)代化，并能夠解決更多問題。

? ? FTC?and?DOJ?Seek?Views?on?Proposed?Update?of?the?Antitrust?Guidelines?for?Licensing?of?Intellectual?Property

?The?Federal?Trade?Commission?and?the?Department?of?Justice’s?Antitrust?Division?seek?public?comment?on?a?proposed?update?of?the?Antitrust?Guidelines?for?the?Licensing?of?Intellectual?Property,?also?known?as?the?IP?Licensing?Guidelines.?The?IP?Licensing?Guidelines,?which?state?the?agencies’?antitrust?enforcement?policy?with?respect?to?the?licensing?of?intellectual?property?protected?by?patent,?copyright,?and?trade?secret?law?and?of?know-how,?were?issued?in?1995?and?are?now?being?updated.

In?the?past?20-plus?years,?the?IP?Licensing?Guidelines?have?served?their?intended?purpose?of?providing?guidance?to?businesses?and?the?public?regarding?potential?antitrust?issues?that?may?arise?in?the?context?of?intellectual?property?licenses.?In?their?2007?joint?report?entitled?Antitrust?Enforcement?and?Intellectual?Property?Rights:?Promoting?Innovation?and?Competition?(the?“Antitrust?IP?Report”),?the?agencies?reaffirmed?the?integral?role?of?the?IP?Licensing?Guidelines?in?their?analysis?of?antitrust?and?intellectual?property?issues.?With?the?IP?Licensing?Guidelines?as?an?analytical?tool,?the?agencies?have?accumulated?additional?antitrust?enforcement?experience?and?policy?expertise?in?this?area.?The?proposed?update?announced?today?reflects?this?knowledge.?It?is?intended?to?modernize?the?IP?Licensing?Guidelines?without?changing?the?agencies’?enforcement?approach?with?respect?to?intellectual?property?licensing?or?expanding?the?IP?Licensing?Guidelines?to?address?other?topics?and?areas?that?are?addressed,?for?example,?in?the?2007?Antitrust?IP?Report.

“Licensing?is?a?cornerstone?of?a?strong?system?of?IP?rights?because?it?offers?one?way?that?firms?can?maximize?the?value?of?their?IP?and?realize?an?appropriate?return?on?their?investment,”?said?FTC?Chairwoman?Edith?Ramirez.?“These?updated?Guidelines?reaffirm?our?view?that?U.S.?antitrust?law?leaves?licensing?decisions?to?IP?owners,?licensees,?private?negotiations,?and?market?forces?unless?there?is?evidence?that?the?arrangement?likely?harms?competition.”

“The?IP?Licensing?Guidelines?have?been?invaluable?to?the?department’s?investigative?and?enforcement?efforts?since?they?were?issued?in?1995,”?said?Acting?Assistant?Attorney?General?Renata?Hesse,?in?charge?of?the?Department?of?Justice’s?Antitrust?Division.?“They?have?also?guided?business?planning,?and?they?have?been?cited?by?courts,?in?numerous?government?briefs,?business?review?letters,?and?policy?documents.?Although?the?Guidelines?are?sound,?it?is?time?to?modernize?them?to?reflect?changes?in?the?law?since?they?were?issued.”

In?the?agencies’?view,?the?IP?Licensing?Guidelines?remain?soundly?grounded,?as?a?matter?of?antitrust?law?and?economics,?in?three?basic?principles:

The?agencies?apply?the?same?antitrust?analysis?to?conduct?involving?intellectual?property?as?to?conduct?involving?other?forms?of?property,?taking?into?account?the?specific?characteristics?of?a?particular?property?right.

The?agencies?do?not?presume?that?intellectual?property?creates?market?power.

The?agencies?recognize?that?intellectual?property?licensing?allows?firms?to?combine?complementary?factors?of?production?and?is?generally?procompetitive.

?

Nevertheless,?the?agencies?have?determined?that?some?revisions?are?in?order?because?the?IP?Licensing?Guidelines?should?accurately?reflect?intervening?changes?in?statutory?and?case?law.?For?example,?Congress?recently?enacted?the?Defend?Trade?Secrets?Act?of?2016,?creating?for?the?first?time?a?federal?cause?of?action?for?misappropriation?of?trade?secrets.?Also,?the?change?from?a?17-year?patent?term?(from?the?date?of?grant)?to?a?20-year?patent?term?(from?the?date?of?filing)?effectuated?by?the?Uruguay?Round?Agreements?Act?of?1994?was?on?the?verge?of?taking?effect?when?the?IP?Licensing?Guidelines?were?issued?in?1995.?Similarly,?copyright?terms?are?longer?now?than?when?the?IP?Licensing?Guidelines?were?issued.?The?proposed?updated?IP?Licensing?Guidelines?account?for?these?statutory?developments.?

Case?law?developments?include?the?Supreme?Court’s?decision?in?Illinois?Tool?Works,?Inc.?v.?Independent?Ink,?Inc.,?in?which?the?Court?subscribed?to?the?agencies’?view?in?the?IP?Licensing?Guidelines?that?a?patent?does?not?necessarily?confer?market?power?on?the?patentee.?Another?important?development?is?the?Court’s?decision?in?Leegin?Creative?Leather?Products,?Inc.?v.?PSKS,?Inc.,?which?held?that?resale?price?maintenance?(RPM)?agreements?should?be?evaluated?under?the?rule?of?reason,?overturning?a?nearly?century-old?view?of?per?se?illegality.?Although?Leeginarose?in?the?context?of?resale?price?restrictions?on?goods?sold?by?retailers,?the?agencies?find?that?its?analysis?applies?equally?to?pricing?restrictions?in?intellectual?property?licensing?agreements.?The?IP?Licensing?Guidelines?therefore?have?been?amended?to?reflect?rule-of-reason?treatment?of?vertical?price?agreements.

The?agencies?are?also?updating?the?IP?Licensing?Guidelines’?discussion?of?general?principles?to?reflect?the?research?in?the?FTC’s?2011?Evolving?IP?Marketplace?report.?The?agencies?also?added?language?to?reinforce?their?longstanding?view?that?“the?antitrust?laws?generally?do?not?impose?liability?upon?a?firm?for?a?unilateral?refusal?to?assist?its?competitors,?in?part?because?doing?so?may?undermine?incentives?for?investment?and?innovation.”

In?addition,?the?agencies?are?updating?the?analysis?of?markets?affected?by?licensing?arrangements?to?mirror?the?approach?taken?in?the?2010?Horizontal?Merger?Guidelines.?The?IP?Licensing?Guidelines’?approach?to?innovation?markets?has?been?revised?to?reflect?the?agencies’?actual?experience?with?this?mode?of?analysis.?The?proposed?update?retains?the?concept?of?“innovation?markets,”?but?refers?to?them?as?“Research?and?Development?Markets”?to?more?accurately?reflect?how?these?markets?have?been?defined?in?enforcement?actions.

The?Commission?vote?approving?issuance?of?the?proposed?updated?IP?Licensing?Guidelines?for?public?comment?was?3-0.

The?agencies?are?interested?in?receiving?comments?on?the?proposed?update?from?interested?parties,?including?attorneys,?economists,?academics,?consumer?groups,?and?the?business?community.?Interested?parties?may?submit?public?comments?to?ATR-LPS-IP?Guidelines(link?sends?e-mail)until?September?26,?2016.?Submitted?comments?will?be?made?publicly?available?on?the?Agencies’?websites.?

來源：工信部電子知識產(chǎn)權(quán)中心、美國聯(lián)邦貿(mào)易委員會網(wǎng)站

免責(zé)聲明：版權(quán)歸原創(chuàng)所有僅供學(xué)習(xí)參考之用，禁止用于商業(yè)用途，部分文章推送時(shí)未能及時(shí)與原作者取得聯(lián)系，若來源標(biāo)錯(cuò)誤侵犯到您的權(quán)益煩請告知我們將立即刪除。