:::

詳目顯示

回上一頁
題名:國際SEP訴訟管轄規則之研究 —以小米通訊技術有限公司與Inter Digital公司標準必要專利許可費率糾紛案為視角
作者:耿柏洋
作者(外文):GENG,BAI-YANG
校院名稱:東海大學
系所名稱:法律學系
指導教授:陳隆修
林恩瑋
學位類別:博士
出版日期:2022
主題關鍵詞:管轄規則標準必要專利智慧財產權實體法方法論Jurisdictional RuleStandard-Essential PatentsIntellectual Property RightsSubstantive Law Methodology
原始連結:連回原系統網址new window
相關次數:
  • 被引用次數被引用次數:期刊(0) 博士論文(0) 專書(0) 專書論文(0)
  • 排除自我引用排除自我引用:0
  • 共同引用共同引用:0
  • 點閱點閱:3
從傳統衝突法理論上看,智慧財產權案件是涉外民商事法律案件的特例。對於智慧財產權糾紛,傳統觀念強調依據智慧財產權的地域性進行管轄,使得智慧財產權領域並沒有被衝突法理論所關注。多年以來,針對於國內智慧財產權糾紛,各國一直適用國內法律規範加以解決。而針對涉外智慧財產權之保護,各國一直遵循國際公約之規定對涉外智慧財產權加以保護,這就使得面對涉外標準必要專利糾紛時運用傳統衝突法理論無法加以妥善解決。標準必要專利與反托拉斯的結合、公權力與私權利的交叉,運用傳統衝突法理論加以解決只會引起各國強烈的司法衝突。
隨著涉外民商事關係的愈加緊密,傳統的衝突法理論面臨著新的挑戰,現有的智慧財產權政策已經難以滿足越來越多的標準必要專利糾紛。隨著二十一世紀互聯網以及物流業的快速發展,智慧財產權逐漸擺脫傳統地域管轄觀念的束縛,突破了傳統的專屬管轄的限制。基於現有智慧財產權國際公約針對標準必要專利糾紛管轄權之缺失,英國在無線星球訴華為案中率先確立全球管轄權開啟「潘多拉魔盒」後,堅持智慧財產權區域管轄權的部分國家(如中國大陸地區)為了維護本國之政治目的與經濟利益,逐漸擴大本國法院之管轄權,開啟「標準必要專利管轄權戰爭」,造成涉外標準必要專利管轄權之混亂。
根據當前社會的主流價值的變化來調整規則的適用是實體法方法論存在的客觀和顯示基礎。實體法方法論不僅適用於標準必要專利選法規則理論,同樣也可以適用於標準必要專利管轄權領域。運用實體法方法論解決涉外標準必要專利管轄權衝突。通過分析標準必要專利本身之特點和屬性,平衡專利持有者及實施者雙方共同的利益,總結世界兩大法律體系共同追尋之價值,通過建立統一的實體法解決涉外標準必要專利管轄權糾紛,實現國際私法追尋之終極目標個案的「公平」、「正義」是解決當前標準必要專利糾紛根本之道。
From the perspective of traditional conflict of laws theory, the intellectual property rights case is a special kind of case of foreign-related civil and commercial law cases. The traditional concept of intellectual property disputes, which emphasizes jurisdiction based on the territoriality of intellectual property rights, has not received enough attention from the conflict of laws theories. For many years, domestic intellectual property disputes have been resolved by applying domestic laws and regulations. This makes it almost impossible for the traditional conflict of laws theory to properly resolve the disputes over standard-essential patents in foreign countries. The comprehensive combination of standard-essential patents and antitrust, the intersection of public power and private rights, and the use of traditional conflict of laws theory to resolve them will only lead to strong judicial conflicts among countries.
As the civil and commercial relations involving foreign countries become closer, the traditional conflict of laws theory is facing new challenges, and the existing intellectual property rights policy can hardly deal with the increasing number of standard-essential patent disputes. With the rapid development of the Internet and the logistics industry in the 21st century, intellectual property rights are gradually out of control the traditional territorial jurisdiction and breaking through the traditional limitation of exclusive jurisdiction. In addition, the court has also been able to establish the jurisdiction of the courts of the country in order to protect the political purposes and economic interests of the country, and to open the "standard-essential patent jurisdiction". In addition, the court has also decided to extend the jurisdiction of the court to the "standard essential patent jurisdiction", resulting in the confusion of foreign standard essential patent jurisdiction.
The application of the rules is adjusted according to the changes of the mainstream values of the contemporary society, which is the objective and display basis for the existence of the substantive law methodology. The substantive law methodology is not only applicable to the standard essential patent selection rule theory, but also applicable to the field of standard essential patent jurisdiction. The application of substantive law methodology to resolve foreign standard essential patent jurisdictional conflicts. By analyzing the characteristics and attributes of standard-essential patents, balancing the common interests of the patent holder and the enforcer, and summarizing the common values pursued by the two major legal systems in the world, it is the fundamental way to resolve the current standard-essential patent disputes / by establishing a unified substantive law to resolve the foreign standard-essential patent jurisdiction disputes and to realize the "fairness" and "justice" of the ultimate goal pursued by the international private law.
外文參考文獻(作者英文首字母排序)

一、專書及報告

[1]Alexy, R. (2010).A theory of constitutional rights. Oxford University Press, USA.
[2]American Law Institute, Dreyfuss, R. C., Ginsburg, J. C., & Dessemontet, F. (2008).Intellectual Property: Principles Governing Jurisdiction, Choice of Law, and Judgments in Transnational Disputes: as Adopted and Promulgated by the American Law Institute at San Francisco, California May 14, 2007. American Law Institute.
[3]Clark, D. D. (1998). IEEE. ACM Trans Networking.
[4]Cornish, W., Llewelyn, D., & Aplin, T. (2003). Intellectual Property: Patents, Copyright, Trade Marks and Allied Rights (6 th. London, Sweet & Maxwell.
[5]Fawcett, J. J., Carruthers, J. M., North, P. M., & North, P. M. (2008). Cheshire, North & Fawcett private international law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
[6]Ferro, F. (2018). The nature of FRAND commitments under French contract and property law. Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice.
[7]Maitland, F. W. (1920). Equity, Also, the Forms of Action at Common Law: Two Courses of Lectures. Cambridge: University Press.
[8]Pentheroudakis, C., & Baron, J. (2017). Licensing terms of standard essential patents: A comprehensive analysis of cases. JRC Science for Policy Report.
[9]Pentheroudakis, C., & Baron, J. (2017). Licensing terms of standard essential patents: A comprehensive analysis of cases. JRC Science for Policy Report.
[10]Prescott, P., & Vitoria, M. (1980). The modern law of copyright. Butterworths.
[11]Rogerson, P. (2013). Collier's conflict of laws. Cambridge University Press.
[12]Sir William Holdsworth(1956),A History of English Law, Sweet & Maxwell Ltd
[13]Ulmer, E. (1978). Intellectual property rights and the conflict of laws. Springer.

二、期刊論文

[1]Borghetti, J. S., Nikolic, I., & Petit, N. (2021). FRAND licensing levels under EU law. European Competition Journal, 17(2), 205-268.
[2]Briggs, A. (2005). The impact of recent judgments of the European Court on English procedural law and practice. Zeitschrift fur Schweizerisches Recht, 2(124), 231-262.
[3]Brody, M., Harlan, J. I., Johnson, S., Mills, C., & Bigelow, P. (2017). Extraterritorial Application of US Patent Laws. In Sedona Conf. J. (Vol. 18, p. 187).
[4] Burk, D. L. (1993). Patents in cyberspace: Territoriality and infringement on global computer networks. Tul. L. Rev., 68, 1.
[5]Cavendish, M. (2001). Understanding the First-to-File Rule and Its Anticipatory Suit Exception. FLORIDA BAR JOURNAL, 75(7), 24-31.
[6]Cavers, D. F. (1933). A Critique of the Choice-of-law Problem. Harvard Law Review, 47(2), 173-208.
[7]Contreras, J. L., & Eixenberger, M. (2017). The Anti-Suit Injunction-A Transnational Remedy for Multi-Jurisdictional SEP Litigation. Cambridge Handbook of Technical Standardization Law-Patent, Antitrust and Competition Law (Jorge L. Contreras, ed., 2017, Forthcoming), University of Utah College of Law Research Paper, (209).
[8]Cotter, T. F. (2013). Comparative law and economics of standard-essential patents and FRAND royalties. Tex. Intell. Prop. LJ, 22, 311.
[9]Deng, F., Leonard, G. K., & Lopez, M. A. (2017). Comparative Analysis of Court-Determined FRAND Royalty Rates. Antitrust, 32, 47.
[10]Dinwoodie, G. B. (2001). International Intellectual Property Litigation: A Vehicle for Resurgent Comparativist Thought?. The American Journal of Comparative Law, 49(3), 429-453.
[11]Durie, D. J., & Lemley, M. A. (2010). A Structured Approach to Calculating Reasonable Royalties. Lewis & Clark L. Rev., 14, 627.
[12]Estreicher, S., & Lee, T. H. (2019). In Defense of International Comity. S. Cal. L. Rev., 93, 169.
[13]George, J. P. (2002). International Parallel Litigation-A Survey of Current Conventions and Model Laws. Tex. Int'l LJ, 37, 499.
[14]Hartley, T. C. (1987). Comity and the Use of Antisuit Injunctions in International Litigation. The American Journal of Comparative Law, 35(3), 487-511.
[15]Hartley, T. C. (1987). Comity and the Use of Antisuit Injunctions in International Litigation. The American Journal of Comparative Law, 35(3), 487-511.
[16]J. H. C. Morris, The Conflict of laws, 3rd ed. 1984, D. 93.
[17]Kegel, G. (1979). Paternal Home and Dream Home: Traditional Conflict of Laws and the American Reformers. The American Journal of Comparative Law, 615-633.
[18]Kennett, W. (1995). Forum non conveniens in Europe. The Cambridge Law Journal, 54(3), 552-577.
[19]Lemley, M. A. (2002). Intellectual property rights and standard-setting organizations. Calif. L. Rev., 90, 1889.
[20]Lemley, M. A., & Shapiro, C. (2006). Patent holdup and royalty stacking. Tex. L. Rev., 85, 1991.
[21]Moir, A., Wilson, D., Ruesink-Brown, N., Falcone, J., & Alcasabas, A. (2015). Recent guidance on SEP licensing in the US and EU. Managing Intell. Prop., 252, 10.
[22]Schutze, R. A. (2002). Lis Pendens and Related Actions. Eur. JL Reform, 4, 57.
[23]Spulber, D. F. (2020). Licensing Standard Essential Patents with FRAND Commitments: Preparing for 5G Mobile Telecommunications.Colo. Tech. LJ, 18, 79.
[24]Taffet, R. S. (2012). The Federal Trade Commission’s Evolving IP Marketplace Report’s Challenge to Inventiveness. Innovation, and Competitiveness, The Antitrust Source, 1-14.
[25]Weaver, C. H. (2002). Binding the World: Full Faith & (and) Credit of State Court Antisuit Injunctions. UC Davis L. Rev., 36, 993.
[26]Williamson, O. E. (1998). Transaction cost economics: how it works; where it is headed. De economist, 146(1), 23-58.

三、網路文獻

[1]337-TA-794 Commission Opinion (Public Version)(2022). Retrieved 15 March 2022, from https://www.essentialpatentblog.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/64/2013/07/337-TA-794-Commission-Opinion-Public-Version.pdf
[2]A unique contribution. (2022). Retrieved 25 April 2022, from https://www.wto.org/english/thewto_e/whatis_e/tif_e/disp1_e.htm
[3]Bekkers, R., Raiteri, E., Martinelli, A., & Tur, E. M. (2020). Landscape study of potentially essential patents disclosed to ETSI. In Digital Economy Working Paper 2020-06; JRC Technical Report, JRC120137. European Commission, Joint Research Centre.. (2022). Retrieved 25 April 2022, from https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Rudi-Bekkers/publication/346427540_Landscape_Study_of_Potentially_Essential_Patents_Disclosed_to_ETSI_A_study_carried_out_in_the_context_of_the_EC_'Pilot_Study_for_Essentiality_Assessment_of_Standard_Essential_Patents'_project/links/5fc1408992851c933f69576c/Landscape-Study-of-Potentially-Essential-Patents-Disclosed-to-ETSI-A-study-carried-out-in-the-context-of-the-EC-Pilot-Study-for-Essentiality-Assessment-of-Standard-Essential-Patents-project.pdf
[4]CHINA – ENFORCEMENT OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS REQUEST TO JOIN CONSULTATIONS Communication from the United States(2022). Retrieved 23 April 2022, from https://docs.wto.org/dol2fe/Pages/SS/directdoc.aspx?filename=q:/WT/DS/611-3.pdf&Open=True
[5]CHINA – ENFORCEMENT OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS REQUEST TO JOIN CONSULTATIONS Communication from Canada(2022). Retrieved 23 April 2022, from https://docs.wto.org/dol2fe/Pages/SS/directdoc.aspx?filename=q:/WT/DS/611-4.pdf&Open=True
[6]CHINA – ENFORCEMENT OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS REQUEST TO JOIN CONSULTATIONS Communication from Japan(2022). Retrieved 23 April 2022, from https://docs.wto.org/dol2fe/Pages/SS/directdoc.aspx?filename=q:/WT/DS/611-2.pdf&Open=True
[7]Comparing EU And US Standard-Essential Patent Guidance. (2022). Retrieved 3 May 2022, from https://www.ropesgray.com/en/newsroom/alerts/2017/12/Comparing-EU-And-US-Standard-Essential-Patent-Guidance
[8]Court clarifies FRAND litigation issues in Germany. (2022). Retrieved 3 May 2022, from https://www.pinsentmasons.com/out-law/analysis/court-frand-litigation-germany
[9]Dr. Henrik Holzapfel. The Net Is Tightening on European SEP Regulation. (2022). Retrieved 3 May 2022, from https://www.ipupdate.com/2022/02/the-net-is-tightening-on-european-sep-regulation/
[10]Etsi. (2019, November 19). REGULATIONS GOVERNING USE OF THE EUROPEAN UNION COLLECTIVE TRADEMARK. ETSI. https://www.etsi.org/images/files/Brochures/Regulations_governing_use.pdf
[11]Etsi. (2021, November 1). RULES OF PROCEDURE. ETSI. https://www.etsi.org/images/files/IPR/etsi-ipr-policy.pdf,
[12]ETSI:ETSI Intellectual Property Rights Policy(2022). Retrieved 25 April 2022, from https://www.etsi.org/images/files/IPR/etsi-ipr-policy.pdf
[13]EUROPEAN UNION Permanent Mission to the World Trade Organization The Chargé d’affaires a.i. (2022). Retrieved 23 February 2022, from https://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2022/february/tradoc_160051.pdf
[14]EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508(2022). Retrieved 16 March 2022, from https://ustr.gov/sites/default/files/08032013%20Letter_1.PDF
[15]FOSS PATENTS. (2021). Retrieved 3 April 2021, from http://www.fosspatents.com/2021/03/anti-anti-anti-antisuit-injunctions-no.html
[16]FRAND goes global. (2022). Retrieved 3 May 2022, from https://www.iam-media.com/global-guide/global-patent-litigation/202/article/frand-goes-global
[17] FTC,(2022). Motorola Mobility LLC, and Google Inc,Docket No. C-4410,Retrieved 15 March 2022, from https://www.ftc.gov/sites/default/files/documents/cases/2013/07/130724googlemotorolado.pdf
[18]Global Smartphone Market Share: By Quarter. (2022). Retrieved 21 February 2022, from https://www.counterpointresearch.com/global-smartphone-share/
[19]IEEE. (2022). Retrieved 13 February 2022, from https://standards.ieee.org/wp-content/uploads/import/documents/other/sb-bylaws.pdf.
[20]Intellectual Property Rights (IPRs). (2022). Retrieved 7 January 2022, from https://www.etsi.org/intellectual-property-rights
[21]ITC(2022),Inv. No. 337-TA-794.Retrieved 15 March 2022, from https://www.usitc.gov/secretary/fed_reg_notices/337/337-794_notice06042013sgl.pdf
[22]Loi du 1er juillet 1901 relative au contrat d'association. (2022). Retrieved 9 January 2022, from https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/loda/article_lc/LEGIARTI000006294210n,
[23]Munich court confirms AAAASI in SEP battle between InterDigital and Xiaomi. (2021). Retrieved 3 April 2021, from https://www.juve-patent.com/news-and-stories/cases/munich-court-confirms-aaaasi-in-sep-battle-between-interdigital-and-xiaomi/
[24]Open for business: the Supreme Court decision in Unwired Planet & Conversant - Carpmaels & Ransford - Law Firm. (2022). Retrieved 17 February 2022, from https://www.carpmaels.com/open-for-business-the-supreme-court-decision-in-unwired-planet-conversant/
[25]Policy Statement On Remedies For Standards-Essential Patents Subject To Voluntary F/RAND Commitments January 8, 2013 .Retrieved 16 March 2022, from https://www.justice.gov/atr/page/file/1118381/download
[26]Prepared Statement of The Federal Trade Commission(2022). FTC.Retrieved 14 March 2022, from https://www.ftc.gov/sites/default/files/documents/public_statements/prepared-statement-federal-trade-commission-concerning-standard-essential-patent-disputes-and/130730standardessentialpatents.pdf
[27]Recent developments: update on FRAND in Germany. (2022). Retrieved 3 May 2022, from https://www.iam-media.com/global-guide/global-patent-litigation/202/article/recent-developments-update-frand-in-germany
[28]Report of the experts meeting on the intellectual property aspects of the future Convention on jurisdiction and foreign judgments in civil and commercial matters (2022). Retrieved 19 March 2022, from https://assets.hcch.net/upload/wop/jdgmpd13.pdf
[29]Samsung – Enforcement of ETSI standards essential patents (SEP). (2022). Retrieved 7 January 2022, from https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/MEMO_12_1021
[30]SEP Regulation: European Union Calls for Stakeholders’ Views. (2022). Retrieved 3 May 2022, from https://www.natlawreview.com/article/sep-regulation-european-union-calls-stakeholders-views
[31]SEP's and FRAND Laws Take Unexpected Turns Throughout Germany, Europe. (2022). Retrieved 3 May 2022, from https://www.natlawreview.com/article/sep-s-and-frand-laws-take-unexpected-turns-throughout-germany-europe
[32]Sisvel vs. Haier One of Key Decisions of 2020. (2022). Retrieved 3 May 2022, from https://www.sisvel.com/blog/wireless-communications/sisvel-vs-haier-one-of-key-decisions-of-2020
[33]Sisvel vs. Haier: Federal court raises bar for implementers in SEP disputes. (2021). Retrieved 3 April 2021, from https://www.juve-patent.com/news-and-stories/cases/sisvel-vs-haier-federal-court-raises-bar-for-implementers-in-sep-disputes/
[34]SpicyIP. Delhi High Court Issues Anti Anti-Suit Injunction in InterDigital v. Xiaomi Patent Infringement Dispute. (2021). Retrieved 3 April 2021, from https://spicyip.com/2020/10/delhi-high-court-issues-anti-anti-suit-injunction-in-interdigital-v-xiaomi.html
[35]The future of standard essential patent licensing. (2022). Retrieved 3 May 2022, from https://www.pinsentmasons.com/out-law/analysis/the-future-of-standard-essential-patent-licensing
[36]The Net Is Tightening on European SEP Regulation. (2022). Retrieved 3 May 2022, from https://www.natlawreview.com/article/net-tightening-european-sep-regulation
[37]The quandary in granting 「anti-anti」 suit injunctions: Application in Indian law. (2021). Retrieved 2 April 2021, from https://www.barandbench.com/columns/the-quandary-in-granting-anti-anti-suit-injunctions-application-in-indian-law
[38]Unwired Planet: unpicking the UK Supreme Court's ruling. (2021). Retrieved 3 April 2021, from https://www.pinsentmasons.com/out-law/analysis/unwired-planet-uk-supreme-court
[39]What is a Standard Essential Patent (SEP)?. (2022). Retrieved 7 January 2022, from https://shipglobalip.com/blog/what-is-a-standard-essential-patent-sep-

中文參考文獻(作者及譯者拼音排序)

一、專書

[1]阿瑟·冯迈伦[著]李晶[譯]. (2015). 国际私法中的司法管辖权之比较研究 : Adjudicatory authority in private international law a comparative study. 法律出版社.
[2]陳隆修(1986).國際私法管轄權評論.五南圖書出版公司
[3]陳隆修(2009).國際私法:管轄與選法理論之交錯.五南圖書出版有限公司
[4]陳隆修(2012).中國思想下的全球化選法規則.五南圖書出版有限公司
[5]陳隆修(2013).中國思想下的全球化管轄規則.五南圖書出版公司
[6]陳隆修、劉仁山、許兆慶(2011).國際私法——程序正義與實體正義.五南圖書出版有限公司
[7]陳隆修、許兆慶、林恩瑋、李瑞生(2009).國際私法:管轄與選法理論之交錯.五南圖書出版公司
[8]程冰(2020).知識產權國際私法新問題研究.人民法院出版社
[9]杜濤(2016).國際私法原理.復旦大學出版社
[10]杜月舁(2003).價值與勞動.中國經濟出版社
[11]弗裏德里希·K. 榮格.(2007).法律選擇與涉外司法. 北京大學出版社.
[12]蓋尤斯著&黃風譯(2008).蓋尤斯法學階梯.中國政法大學出版社
[13]何其生(2019).國際私法入門筆記.法律出版社
[14]金彥叔(2010). 國際知的財産権保護と法の抵觸.信山社.
[15]卡爾·恩吉施[德]、鄭永流[譯](2014).法律思維導論.法律出版社
[16]拉德布魯赫[著]、米健[譯].(2012).法學導論 : Einfuhrung in die rechtswissenschaft. 法律出版社.
[17]李雙元&謝石鬆&歐福永(2016).國際民事訴訟法概論(第三版).武漢大學出版社
[18]李雙元&謝石鬆(1990).國際民事訴訟法概論,武漢大學出版社
[19]李雙元&謝石鬆(2001).國際民事訴訟概論.武漢大學出版社
[20]李旺(2002).國際訴訟競合.中國政法大學出版社
[21]羅素・帕爾, 戈登・史密斯, 史密斯, 帕爾, & 周叔敏(2012).知識產權價值評估、開發與侵權賠償.電子工業出版社.
[22]馬克思&恩格斯(2009).馬克思恩格斯文集第五卷.人民出版社
[23]馬克思(2004).資本論第三卷.人民出版社
[24]馬克思(2004).資本論第一卷.人民出版社
[25]馬志強(2010).國際私法中最密切聯繫原則研究.人民出版社
[26]尼古拉斯著&黃風譯(2004).羅馬法概論.法律出版社.
[27]薩伊著.陳福生&陳振驊譯(1963).政治經濟學概論.商務印書館
[28]施高翔(2011).中國智慧財產權禁令制度研究.廈門大學出版社
[29]宋建立(2009).國際民商事訴訟管轄權衝突的協調與解決.法律出版社
[30]宋曉(2004).當代國際私法的實體趨向.武漢大學出版社
[31]陶凱元(2016).最高人民法院智慧財產權司法解釋理解與適用.中國法制出版社
[32]王曉曄(2011).反托拉斯法.法律出版社
[33]吳忠觀(2001).經濟學說史.西南財經大學出版社
[34]亞當.斯密[著]、郭大力&王亞南[譯](1972).國民財富的性質和原因的研究(上卷).商務印書館
[35]楊長海(2011).知識產杈衝突法論.廈門大學出版社
[36]中華人民共和國教育部考試中心(2021).法律碩士考試分析.高等教育出版社
[37]朱欖葉. (2004). 智慧財產權法律衝突與解決問題研究. 法律出版社.
[38]Jacques Ghestin,&Gilles[著]陳鵬[譯].(2004).法國民法總論.法律出版社.


二、期刊論文

[1]賓嶽成.(2021).禁訴令性質的行為保全裁定之考量因素及保障措施——我國知識產權訴訟首例禁訴令裁定解讀. 法律適用(4),11.
[2]車紅蕾. (2018). 交易成本視角下標準必要專利禁令救濟濫用的司法規制. 知識產權, (1), 50-58.
[3]陳辰(2019).試析FRAND承諾原則下標準必要專利的禁令救濟問題.傳播與版權.6.190-192
[4]叢林, 王珺, & 韓旭. (2019). 勞動價值論與效用價值論的對立與統一. 農家參謀, 8
[5]叢雪蓮.(2008).論歐洲跨國專利侵權訴訟中的管轄權.中國國際私法學會2008年年會論文集
[6]丁亞琦. (2017). 論我國標准必要專利禁令救濟反托拉斯的法律規制. 政治與法律(2), 11.
[7]董凡. (2019). 競爭法視域下標准必要專利禁令救濟濫用行為的司法適用問題. 理論探索(2), 7.
[8]董美根. (2009). 美國專利永久禁令適用之例外對我國強制許可的啟示——兼論「 專利法」(第三次) 修訂. 電子知識產權, 1.
[9]杜濤. (2012). 美國證券法域外管轄權: 終結還是復活?——評美國聯邦最高法院 Morrison 案及「多德—弗蘭克法」 第 929P (b) 條. 證券法苑, (2), 895-928.
[10]杜濤. (2015). 先受理法院規則與國際平行訴訟問題的解決. 武大國際法評論(2), 19.
[11]關春媛. (2021). 標准必要專利糾紛中禁訴令制度的探索與構建. 中國發明與專利, 18(11), 8.
[12]韓偉,徐美玲. (2016). 標准必要專利禁令行為的反托拉斯規制探析. 知識產權(1), 6.
[13]何丹. (2018). 非專利實施體標准必要專利訴訟中禁令的適用原則. 時代法學, 16(2), 9.
[14]何豔. (2009). 智慧財產權國際私法保護規則的新發展——「 智慧財產權: 跨國糾紛管轄權, 法律選擇和判決原則」 述評及啟示. 法商研究, 26(1), 111-120.
[15]胡志光, & 祝建軍. (2021). 標准必要專利平行訴訟的司法管轄權. 人民司法(13), 6.
[16]冀志芳(2015)。個人金融資訊跨境流動的法律規制研究.華北金融.8.43-46
[17]賈曉輝, & 潘峰. (2010). 標準組織智慧財產權政策 FRAND 許可原則評析. 資訊技術與標準化, (1), 55-57
[18]柯一嘉. (2020). 標准必要專利禁令救濟的反托拉斯問題研究. 競爭法律與政策評論(1), 31.
[19]李冠群, & 唐春莉. (2006). 论国际私法中法律冲突的性质. 辽宁师范大学学报: 社会科学版, 29(4), 29-31.
[20]李揚. (2018). FRAND 承諾的法律性質及其法律效果. 知識產權, (11), 3-9.
[21]李揚. (2018). FRAND 劫持及其法律對策. 武漢大學學報: 哲學社會科學版, 71(1), 117-131.
[22]梁雯雯、李韶華(2020)。中英禁訴令的適用比較研究.長江論壇.6.61-66
[23]梁心新. (2017). 知識產權的勞動價值論探析. 知識產權, (10), 87-91.
[24]劉孔中. (2019). 論標准必要專利公平合理無歧視許可的亞洲標准. 知識產權(11), 14.
[25]劉仁山, & 陳傑. (2019). 我國面臨的國際平行訴訟問題與協調對策. 東嶽論叢(12), 10.
[26]劉仁山, & 黃鈺. (2021). 涉外合同法律適用中"意思自治原則"的適用限制. 社會科學家(10), 7.
[27]劉婉姣(2020)。淺析禁訴令制度在我國的構建。法制博覽.18.177-178
[28]劉欣儀, & 楊澳松. 標准必要專利訴訟中禁訴令制度的國際比較. 法制博覽(名家講壇,經典雜文).
[29]呂淩銳. (2021). 標准必要專利全球許可費司法管轄權研究. 南海法學, 5(4), 10.
[30]馬海生. (2009). 標准化組織的frand許可政策實證分析. 電子知識產權(2), 5.
[31]倪朱亮、申楠、胡毅(2016)。標準必要專利實施許可條件的裁判思路研究。知識產權, 12, 26-31.
[32]寧立志, & 龔濤. (2021). 禁訴令大戰的理論意蘊與實踐應對. 政法論叢(6), 11.
[33]歐福永 & 袁江平.(2022).國際專利訴訟中的禁訴令制度. 湖南大學學報(社會科學版)(02),136-146.
[34]錢曉強. (2021). 通訊標准必要專利糾紛中的禁訴令問題探析. 電子知識產權(9), 8.
[35]邵偉, & 遲少傑. (2014). 從「華為訴IDC技術公司等案」看標準必要專利許可. 中國專利與商標, (1), 99-103.
[36]沈紅雨(2020)。我國法的域外適用法律體系構建與涉外民商事訴訟管轄權制度的改革——兼論不方便法院原則和禁訴令機制的構建。中國應用法學.5.114-128
[37]史少華. (2014). 標准必要專利訴訟引發的思考frand原則與禁令. 電子知識產權(1), 4.
[38]宋愛忠. (2019). 效用價值論與生產要素價值論再批判——兼析 “科恩悖論”. 管理學刊, 32(3), 11-18.
[39]宋健. (2017). SEP 案件中申請禁令的條件. 競爭政策研究, (6), 5-6.
[40]宋晓.(2021).涉外标准必要专利纠纷禁诉令的司法方法. 法学(11),176-192.
[41]王娟. (2009). 關於我國引入禁訴令制度的思考. 法學評論(6), 6.
[42]王淑君(2021).國際平行訴訟中外國禁訴令簽發的主要事由。人民法院報.1
[43]王曉君、李達(2021).我國涉外專利糾紛中禁訴令制度的反思與優化.南陽理工學院學報.1.28-31、63
[44]王振謙. (2022). 論基於禁訴令制度的中外司法博弈. 武漢交通職業學院學報, 24(1), 9.
[45]魏立舟. (2015). 標准必要專利情形下禁令救濟的反托拉斯法規制——從"橘皮書標准"到"華為訴中興". 環球法律評論, 37(6), 19.
[46]吳成劍, & 張曉. (2013). 論標準專利的禁令救濟. 中國專利與商標, 2.
[47]徐美玲(2016)。FRAND進路下標準必要專利禁令救濟的適用——2017年英國無線星球訴華為案之評思。網路法律評論.2.261-277
[48]徐偉功. (2003). 不方便法院原則在中國的運用. 政法論壇, 21(2), 9.
[49]徐穎穎. (2017). 標准必要專利權人frand許可聲明的法律關係研究——以歐洲通信標准協會的規定為例. 電子知識產權(11), 10.
[50]許耀明. (2008). 2005海牙合意管轄公約述評.玄奘法律學報(10),37-74
[51]續俊旗, & 李梅. (2014). 資訊通信領域標準必要專利的不合理定價及其反托拉斯法規制. 中國物價, (8), 43-47
[52]楊鴻. (2021). 標准必要專利禁令救濟的法律適用困境與出路. 西部學刊(13), 3.
[53]楊月萍, & 何榮偉. (2009). 論域外送達中的電子郵件送達. 重慶郵電大學學報:社會科學版, 21(5), 6.
[54]楊長海. (2012). 跨國知識產權合同糾紛司法管轄權規則的變革. 法制與經濟:中旬(11), 5.
[55]葉若思, 祝建軍, & 陳文全. (2013). 標准必要專利使用費糾紛中frand規則的司法適用 評華為公司訴美國idc公司標准必要專利使用費糾紛案. 電子知識產權(4), 8.
[56]伊魯. (2020). 論中國反禁訴令制度的構建. 中國海商法研究, 31(2), 7.
[57]於群, & 李娜. (2021). 我國標准必要專利許可費糾紛中禁訴令的適用研究. 長春工程學院學報:社會科學版, 22(3), 5.
[58]袁波. (2018). 標准必要專利禁令救濟立法之反思與完善. 上海財經大學學報:哲學社會科學版, 20(3), 17.
[59]張利民. (2007). 國際民訴中禁訴令的運用及我國禁訴令制度的構建. 法學(3), 9.
[60]張麗英. (2012). "最先受訴法院原則"與禁訴令的博弈. 中國海商法研究(1), 8.
[61]張茂. (1996). 國際民事訴訟中的訴訟競合問題探討. 法學研究(5), 9.
[62]張鵬.(2022).跨境知識產權侵權糾紛的民事訴訟管轄規則研究. 知識產權(01),14-35.
[63]張先砉 & 殷越.(2021).知識產權國際競爭背景下禁訴令制度探索與構建. 法律適用(04),41-52.
[64]張相君. (2010). 海峽兩岸民商事交往法律適用的實體法路徑研究. 福建法學(4), 7.
[65]張雪紅. (2013). 標準必要專利禁令救濟政策之改革. 電子知識產權, (12), 32-35.
[66]張永忠, & 王繹淩. (2015). 標準必要專利訴訟的國際比較: 訴訟類型與裁判經驗. 知識產權, 3, 84-91
[67]趙冰淩, 徐雲飛, & 朱登凱. (2018). 探尋反托拉斯法與知識產權法的合理邊界——從中外標准必要專利禁令救濟案例談起. 電子知識產權, 000(002), 34-47.
[68]趙啟杉. (2015). 競爭法與專利法的交錯: 德國涉及標準必要專利侵權案件禁令救濟規則演變研究. 競爭政策研究, (2), 83-96.
[69]趙千喜. (2021). 標准必要專利之訴中的禁訴令. 人民司法(13), 6.
[70]朱雪忠, & 李闖豪. (2016). 論默示許可原則對標準必要專利的規制. 科技進步與對策, 33(23), 98-104.
[71]祝建軍. (2016). 標準必要專利禁令救濟的成立條件. 人民司法, (1), 54-59.
[72]祝建軍. (2018). 標准必要專利適用禁令救濟時過錯的認定. 知識產權(3), 7.
[73]祝建軍. (2020). 標准必要專利濫用市場支配地位的反托拉斯法規制. 人民司法(13), 6.
[74]祝建軍. (2020). 我國應建立處理標准必要專利爭議的禁訴令制度. 知識產權(6), 9.
[75]祝建軍. (2021). 標准必要專利禁訴令與反禁訴令頒發的沖突及應對. 知識產權(6), 11.
[76]鄒賽男. (2011). 國際私法的實體法方法. 學理論(23), 2.

三、學位論文

[1]安俊衡.(2020).標准必要專利禁令救濟規則研究(碩士學位論文,沈陽工業大學).
[2]陳芳華(2008). 知識產權國際私法問題研究(碩士學位論文,西南政法大學)
[3]陳鋒(2018).標准必要專利侵權糾紛中禁令救濟適用研究(碩士學位論文,重慶大學)
[4]叢雪蓮(2010).歐盟專利訴訟制度研究(博士學位論文,武漢大學)
[5]戴明(2011). 國際私法中知識產權糾紛管轄權研究(碩士學位論文,蘇州大學)
[6]鄧琳梓(2020).涉外知識產權糾紛管轄權沖突研究(碩士學位論文,北方工業大學)
[7]顧崧(2006).國際民商事訴訟競合問題研究(博士學位論文,大連海事大學)
[8]黃洪剛(2014).國際私法之實體法方法探析(碩士學位論文,西南政法大學)
[9]李冰(2020).我國應對國際民事訴訟中禁訴令的制度研究(碩士學位論文,大連海事大學)
[10]李宏斌(2017).論標准必要專利的跨境救濟(碩士學位論文,南京師範大學)
[11]李沛瑤(2020).FRAND承諾下標準必要專利禁令救濟研究(碩士學位論文,大連海事大學)
[12]劉湘辰. 我國域外送達制度的困境及完善建議(碩士學位論文,煙台大學)
[13]盧偉桐(2019).論標准必要專利的禁令救濟限制(碩士學位論文,山東大學)
[14]馬尚(2018).論標準必要專利禁令請求權之抗辯(碩士學位論文,中國計量大學)
[15]牟玉瑩(2019).禁訴令研究(碩士學位論文,大連海事大學)
[16]龐景(2011).專利跨國侵權案件管轄權研究(碩士學位論文,華東政法大學)
[17]任慧盈(2020).涉外知識產權侵權管轄權研究(碩士學位論文,中國政法大學)
[18]孫會志(2008)."禁訴令"若干法律問題研究(碩士學位論文,外交學院)
[19]王超武(2019).赴印ICT企業標准必要專利糾紛的法律救濟研究(碩士學位論文,昆明理工大學)
[20]邢雁發(2016).非專利實施主體(NPE)專利運營策略下的專利權濫用問題及其法律規制(碩士學位論文,中國計量學院)
[21]徐敏(2017).標准必要專利禁令規則研究(碩士學位論文,湘潭大學)
[22]薛曉月(2021).標准必要專利侵權糾紛中禁令救濟問題研究(碩士學位論文,重慶郵電大學)
[23]楊桐宇(2020).禁訴令域外效力的實證研究(碩士學位論文,外交學院)
[24]俞漫詩(2020).論FRAND許可費爭議解決機制完善(碩士學位論文,武漢大學)
[25]趙暢(2017).國際平行訴訟中的禁訴令制度(碩士學位論文,華東政法大學)
[26]周晶梅(2018).FRAND承諾下標準必要專利的禁令救濟研究 ——以「西電捷通訴索尼中國案」為例(碩士學位論文,西南政法大學)

四、網路文獻(按拼音排序)

[1]北京市高級人民法院「專利侵權判定指南」-北京法院網. (2022). Retrieved 17 March 2022, from https://bjgy.chinacourt.gov.cn/article/detail/2013/10/id/1104565.shtml
[2]北美智權報 第068期:德國最新SEP訴訟判決.專利權人地位將大幅提高. (2022). Retrieved 3 May 2022, from http://cn.naipo.com/Portals/11/web_cn/Knowledge_Center/Infringement_Case/IPND_200812_0501.htm
[3]從慕尼黑州法院反禁令.看德國反禁令規則發生了哪些重大變化?_知產力 - MdEditor. (2022). Retrieved 21 February 2022, from https://www.gushiciku.cn/dl/1pJwx/zh-tw
[4]對中國國家發改委中止對IDC涉嫌濫用市場支配地位調查案的簡要回顧,北大法寶V6官網. (2017). Retrieved 10 January 2022, from https://www.pkulaw.com/lawfirmarticles/638a8cbec48b765318e5a7a56accd737bdfb.html.
[5]法律犀牛法律自媒體. 德國法院解釋期待已久的SEP裁決 .認為投資組合許可可以是FRAND許可 - 知乎. (2022). Retrieved 3 May 2022, from https://zhuanlan.zhihu.com/p/161026774
[6]聯德知評 | 德國聯邦最高法院Sisvel訴海爾案三審判決介評. (2022). Retrieved 3 May 2022, from https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s/Apqu9CZyHi2KOumJRXRpiw
[7]聯德知評 | 德國慕尼黑第一地區法院標准必要專利禁令救濟指南介評. (2022). Retrieved 3 May 2022, from https://www.sohu.com/a/376668216_221481
[8]歐盟訴中國的禁訴令:緣由和國際法理. (2022). Retrieved 3 May 2022, from https://baijiahao.baidu.com/s?id=1725634081842639349&wfr=spider&for=pc
[9]企業專利觀察企鵝號. 歐盟SEP新動向:歐洲專利局EPO或成為SEP專利評估的中立機構. (2022). Retrieved 3 May 2022, from https://new.qq.com/omn/20211004/20211004A09OWE00.html
[10]小米之家商業有限公司 - 愛企查. (2022). Retrieved 5 February 2022, from https://aiqicha.baidu.com/company_detail_29838192784689?tab=operatingCondition.
[11]一文了解標准必要專利全球訴訟管轄爭議的規則與應對_媒體視點_上海市知識產權局. (2022). Retrieved 3 May 2022, from https://sipa.sh.gov.cn/2020mtjd/20200921/7669dfcb451a4d6ebd259d56df54be4b.html
[12]知產財經-解讀:美英相繼公布SEP許可政策征求意見為哪般?. (2022). Retrieved 3 May 2022, from https://www.ipeconomy.cn/index.php/mobile/news/magazine_details/id/4264.html
[13]知產財經-【速評】祝建軍:OP訴蘋果案——英國法院裁決SEP全球許可條件新發展. (2022). Retrieved 3 May 2022, from https://www.ipeconomy.cn/index.php/mobile/news/magazine_details/id/4430.html
[14]知產財經-【原創】趙啟杉:司法裁判FRAND許可條件的政策選擇及其對全球SEP訴訟的影響. (2022). Retrieved 3 May 2022, from https://www.ipeconomy.cn/index.php/mobile/article/content/id/2104.html
[15]智慧財產專業團體. (2022). Retrieved 3 May 2022, from https://www.saint-island.com.tw/TW/News/News_Info.aspx?IT=News_1&CID=266&ID=1873
[16]智慧財產專業團體. (2022). Retrieved 3 May 2022, from https://www.saint-island.com.tw/TW/News/News_Info.aspx?IT=News_1&CID=266&ID=1815
[17]中國競爭法律與政策網. (2022). Retrieved 3 May 2022, from https://cclp.sjtu.edu.cn/Show.aspx?info_lb=672&info_id=4747&flag=648
[18]中國涉外民事訴訟管轄權制度及其完善-內蒙古自治區二連浩特市人民法院網. (2022). Retrieved 3 May 2022, from http://elhtfy.chinacourt.gov.cn/article/detail/2014/07/id/1329813.shtml
[19]中國知識產權審判發出的首例禁訴令 ——案件合議庭詳解康文森公司與華為公司標准必要專利許可糾紛案 - 最高人民法院知識產權法庭. (2022). Retrieved 3 May 2022, from https://ipc.court.gov.cn/zh-cn/news/view-1056.html
[20]中國知識產權研究網. (2022). Retrieved 3 May 2022, from http://www.iprcn.com/IL_Zxjs_Show.aspx?News_PI=6610
[21]中興通訊校園行(十一)|蘇志甫:通信領域全球SEP訴訟審理動向及解讀——以典型案例為視角. (2022). Retrieved 3 May 2022, from https://www.sohu.com/a/488625729_221481
[22]【速評】歐盟對中國法院標准必要專利禁訴令裁決的質疑是否合理?. (2022). Retrieved 3 May 2022, from https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s/G6B0rN4mbwfhwHl0xILq2A
[23]【原創】祝建軍:英國法院重申SEP全球許可條件管轄規則——評諾基亞訴OPPO案. (2022). Retrieved 3 May 2022, from https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s/FQssIiMfURVIZKZ-o3YywA
[24]【知產財經觀】解讀:美英相繼公布SEP許可政策征求意見為哪般?. (2022). Retrieved 3 May 2022, from https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s/pSiE0ZZrXOTfOAHU6mRBRQ
IPRdaily全球知識產權綜合信息服務提供商+運營服務平臺. 標准必要專利全球許可的司法管轄權爭議 - 知乎. (2022). Retrieved 3 May 2022, from https://zhuanlan.zhihu.com/p/265857950?ivk_sa=1024320u
 
 
 
 
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top
QR Code
QRCODE