聯合技術標準制定、專利權揭露與競爭法 ― 對2008年Rambus, Inc. v. FTC案

• Main Author: 蔡岳勳 Dennis Y.H. Tsai
• Format: Article
• Language: zho
• Published: National Chiao Tung University 2009-06-01
• Series: Kējì Fǎxué Pínglùn
• Subjects: 競爭秩序; 公平交易法; 反托拉斯法; 技術標準; 專利權揭露; 專利權挾持; antitrust; standard setting; patent hold up; patent disclosure
• Online Access: http://www-old.itl.nctu.edu.tw/tlr_n/papers/ch_paper/6_1/6_1_6.pdf

在知識經濟的時代，許多牽涉到智慧財產權之產業經濟活動，即使並無直接創造出市場力量之外觀，依然引發了一些複雜的競爭法疑慮，例如聯合標準制定行為（collaboratively standard setting）下所可能發生的挾持（hold up）行為，已成為近來競爭法政策中，最具爭議性的問題之一，亦是近來包括美國聯邦交易委員會（Federal Trade Commission, FTC）及私人反托拉斯法訴訟，或是歐盟反托拉斯法執行案件中之重大議題。 而其中最令人矚目且最具代表性的案例即為FTC 與Rambus 歷經數年來的法律角力仍在進行中的訴訟。 2008 年4 月底，美國聯邦哥倫比亞特區巡迴上訴法院（US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit）判決撤銷FTC 對Rambus 之裁決，D.C. Circuit 的判決，或許為Rambus 數年來反托拉斯法律戰爭暫時劃下句點，但就D.C. Circuit 在本案判決所持之法律觀點之正確性而言，似乎不無疑義，亦因此，本案有可能再上訴至美國最高法院，後續發展相當值得關注。 此外，Rambus 一案亦凸顯出在知識經濟時代，聯合技術標準制定所將可能觸發的競爭法疑慮，及與智慧財產權法交錯之複雜性，因此本文將介紹Rambus v. FTC 案之背景與始末，並對D.C. Circuit 撤銷FTC 裁定之判決理由作一評析，盼能拋磚引玉供國內就此議題之規範為參考，以促進我國建立一產業公平競爭發展之良善環境。 Standards allow products becoming interoperable as well as enhance the compatibility among products hence foster the innovation, efficiency and consumer choice. Standard setting through collaboratively activity such as standard setting organization (“SSO”) is commonly used in industry in the knowledge economy era; however, this process could raise unique antitrust concerns, such as “patent hold up.” In April 22, 2008, U.S. D.C. Circuit Court in Rambus v. Federal Trade Commission, unanimously reversed the FTC’s August 2006 decision that Rambus had violated Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act by failing to disclose intellectual property rights to a SSO. This case demonstrates the unique antitrust concerns and the complexity of patent hold up issues that might arise in collaboratively standard setting activities. This article discusses the background of this case, further review on D.C. Circuit’s holdings in this case, and argues that D.C. Circuit’s rulings in this case should be reconsidered as it is inconsistent with the law and sound antitrust policy.