轉發美國三部門聯合發布的“征求公眾就F/RAND承諾的標準基本專利許可談判和補救措施政策聲明草案發表意見”的通知
(以下為通知原文)
01
The Department of Justice announced today that it is requesting public comment on a new draft policy statement concerning standards-essential patents (SEPs) that seeks to promote good-faith licensing negotiations and addresses the scope of remedies available to patent owners that have agreed to license their essential technologies on reasonable and non-discriminatory or fair, reasonable,and non-discriminatory (F/RAND) terms.The Justice Department worked with U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) and the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) in responding to President Biden’s recent Executive Order on Promoting Competition in the American Economy, which encouraged the agencies to review the 2019 Policy Statement on Remedies for Standards-Essential Patents Subject to Voluntary F/RAND Commitments to ensure that it adequately promoted competition.Together the agencies,after consulting with the Federal Trade Commission,are now issuing a revised draft statement for public comment.
“The department looks forward to working with our agency partners,” said Assistant Attorney General Jonathan Kanter of the Justice Department’s Antitrust Division. “We are committed to taking a principled, transparent, and balanced approach at the intersection of intellectual property and antitrust law.”
The draft statement is open to public comment for 30 days and provides a framework to facilitate good-faith licensing negotiation between SEP owners and potential licensees. It also discusses what remedies may be available when SEPs subject to voluntary F/RAND commitments are infringed.The draft statement indicates that good-faith negotiation that leads to widespread and efficient licensing between SEP holders and those who seek to implement standardized technologies can help to promote technology innovation, further consumer choice,and enable industry competitiveness. The draft statement will not be finalized until the agencies consider all stakeholder input.
In particular, the agencies are interested in comments addressing the following questions:Should the 2019 Policy Statement on Remedies for Standards-Essential Patents Subject to Voluntary F/RAND Commitments be revised?
Does the draft revisedstatement appropriately balance the interests of patent holders and implementers in the voluntary consensus standards process, consistent with the prevailing legal framework for assessing infringement remedies?
Does the draft revised statement address the competition concerns about the potential for extension of market power beyond appropriate patent scope identified in the July 9.2021 Executive Order on Promoting Competition in the American Economy?
In your experience, has the possibility of injunctive relief been a significant factor in negotiations over SEPs subject to a voluntary F/RAND commitment? If so, how often have you experienced this?
Are other challenges typically present in negotiating a SEP license? If so, what information should be provided or exchanged as a practical matter to make negotiation more efficient and transparent?
Are small business owners and small inventors impacted by perceived licensing inefficiencies involving SEPs? If so, how can licensing be made more efficient and transparent for small businesses and small inventors that either own, or seek to license, SEPs?
Will the licensing considerations set forth in the draft revised Statement promote a useful framework for good-faith F/RAND licensing negotiations? In what ways could the framework be improved?How can any framework for good-faith negotiations, and this framework in particular, better support the intellectual property rights policies of standards-setting organizations?
What other impacts, if any, would the draft revised statement have on standards-setting organizations and contributors to the standards development process?
The draft revised statement discusses fact patterns intended to indicate when a potential licensee is willing or unwilling to take a F/RAND license. Are there other examples of willingness or unwillingness that should be included in the statement?
Have prior executive branch policy statements on SEPs been used by courts, other authorities, or in licensing negotiations? If so, what effect has the use of those statements had on the licensing process, outcomes, or resolutions?
Are there resources or information that the U.S. government could provide/develop to help inform businesses about licensing SEPs subject to a voluntary F/RAND commitment?
Interested parties，including attorneys，economists，academics， consumer groups，industry stakeholders or other members of the public may submit public comments to Regulations.gov until Jan.5. 2022.Information about the draft revised statement can also be found on the Antitrust Division’s website.
02
參考翻譯：
希望著重提供反饋意見的問題：
1. 2019年關于受自愿F/RAND承諾約束的標準必要專利補救措施的政策聲明是否應該修訂?
2. 修訂后的聲明草案是否適當平衡了自愿協商一致標準過程中專利持有人和實施者的利益，符合評估侵權補救措施的現行法律框架?
3. 草案修訂的聲明是否涉及競爭的關注，關于市場權力延伸的潛力超過2021年7月9日行政命令中確定的關于促進美國經濟競爭的適當專利范圍嗎?
4. 根據您的經驗，禁令救濟的可能性是否是受自愿F/RAND承諾約束的SEP談判中的一個重要因素?如果是，你多久經歷一次?
5. 在談判SEP許可證時，通常存在其他挑戰嗎?如果是的話，作為一個實際問題，應該提供或交換哪些信息，以使談判更加有效和透明?
6. 小企業主和小發明家是否受到涉及SEP的許可證低效率的影響?如果是這樣，對于擁有或尋求許可SEP的小企業和小發明家，如何提高許可的效率和透明度?
7. 修訂聲明草案中提出的許可事項是否會促進誠信F/RAND許可談判的有用框架?可以通過哪些方式改進該框架?任何誠信談判框架，尤其是該框架，如何更好地支持標準制定組織的知識產權政策?
8. 修訂后的聲明草案會對標準制定組織和標準制定過程的參與者產生哪些其他影響(如有)?
9. 修訂后的聲明草案討論了旨在表明潛在被許可人何時愿意或不愿意獲得F/RAND許可證的事實模式。聲明中是否還應包括其他愿意或不愿意的例子?
10. 法院、其他當局或許可證談判中是否使用了先前行政部門關于SEP的政策聲明?如果是，這些聲明的使用對許可過程、結果或決議有什么影響?
11. 美國政府是否可以提供/開發資源或信息，以幫助企業了解根據自愿F/RAND承諾許可?
中企檢測認證網提供iso體系認證機構查詢，檢驗檢測、認證認可、資質資格、計量校準、知識產權貫標一站式行業企業服務平臺。中企檢測認證網為檢測行業相關檢驗、檢測、認證、計量、校準機構，儀器設備、耗材、配件、試劑、標準品供應商，法規咨詢、標準服務、實驗室軟件提供商提供包括品牌宣傳、產品展示、技術交流、新品推薦等全方位推廣服務。這個問題就給大家解答到這里了，如還需要了解更多專業性問題可以撥打中企檢測認證網在線客服13550333441。為您提供全面檢測、認證、商標、專利、知識產權、版權法律法規知識資訊，包括商標注冊、食品檢測、第三方檢測機構、網絡信息技術檢測、環境檢測、管理體系認證、服務體系認證、產品認證、版權登記、專利申請、知識產權、檢測法、認證標準等信息，中企檢測認證網為檢測認證商標專利從業者提供多種檢測、認證、知識產權、版權、商標、專利的轉讓代理查詢法律法規，咨詢輔導等知識。
本文內容整合網站：中國政府網、百度百科、最高人民法院、知乎、國家認證認可監督管理委員會、國家知識產權局、市場監督總局
免責聲明：本文部分內容根據網絡信息整理，文章版權歸原作者所有。向原作者致敬！發布旨在積善利他，如涉及作品內容、版權和其它問題，請跟我們聯系刪除并致歉！
