Classificationintroduction
1.Theabuseofintellectualpropertyrightsismainlydividedintotwocategories:
First,therightholdersexceedthelegalrightsthemselveswhenexercisingintellectualpropertyrights.Thescopeof;
Thesecondisthattherightholderdoesnotexceedthelegalrightswhenexercisinghisintellectualpropertyrights,butunreasonablyrestrictsthefaircompetitioninthemarket,orviolatesotherpublicpolicies,thebehaviorshouldstillberegulatedbythecompetitionlaw.
Theoriginoftheconcept
Theconceptof"intellectualpropertyabuse"originatedfromtheBritishpatentlaw,whichmeansthattheowneroftheintellectualpropertyrightsexceedsthescopeofthelawintheprocessofexercisinglegalintellectualpropertyrights.Orlimit,harmtheinterestsofothersandthepublicinterest.Sincetheobjectofintellectualpropertyrightsissymbolicexpression,theconnotationsofworks,trademarks,technologicalinventions,etc.allneedtobeexplainedandconfirmedbylaw,andtheidentificationstandardsofcreativityanddistinctivenessareextremelyvague,whichreducestheclarityofthecontentofrights.,providesmoreopportunitiesforabuseofrights.Basedonthepublicinterestthatthepatentsystemistopromotetechnologicalprogressinthecountry,thefailureofpatenteestoimplementpatentsisregardedasanabuseofmonopolyrightsintheUK,andtheabuseofpatentshasthereforebecomethebasisforcompulsorypatentlicensing.ThisconceptandsystemwasadoptedbytheParisConvention.②Here,abuseofmonopolypower(patentright)mainlyreferstothebehaviorofnotimplementingpatentsornotfullyimplementingpatents
Chinaunderstands
China’sintellectualpropertyrightsUnderstandingofAbuse
Article55oftheAnti-MonopolyLawstipulates:“Theactofanoperatorinexercisingintellectualpropertyrightsinaccordancewithrelevantintellectualpropertylawsandadministrativeregulationsdoesnotapplytothislaw;however,businessoperatorsabusingknowledgePropertyrights,actsthatexcludeandrestrictcompetition,applytothislaw."Fromthesemanticsofthelegalprovisions,theabuseofintellectualpropertyrightsundertheanti-monopolylawmustmeettwoconditions:oneistheabuseofintellectualpropertyrights;theotheristheThebehaviorexcludesandrestrictscompetitivebehavior.Asaresult,therehasbeensuchasituation:inadditiontosatisfyingtheconditionsforexclusionandrestrictionofcompetition,theremustbeapre-existingbehaviorofintellectualpropertyabuseinthedeterminationoftheabuseofintellectualpropertyrights,butthereisnorelevantinmycountry’sintellectualpropertylegislation.Regulation.The“GuidelinesonAnti-MonopolyLawEnforcementintheFieldofIntellectualProperty(FourthDraft)”(hereinafterreferredtoas“IntellectualPropertyGuide”)thattheStateAdministrationforIndustryandCommerceisformulatingInthecaseofintellectualpropertybehavior,thefollowingstepsaregenerallyusedforanalysis:(1)Determinethenatureandmanifestationoftheintellectualpropertyrightsexercisebythebusinessoperator;(2)Determinethecompetitiverelationshipbetweenthebusinessoperators;(3)Definetherelevantmarket;(4)Identifythemarketpositionoftheoperator;(5)Analyzewhethertheoperator’sexerciseofintellectualpropertyrightsexcludesorrestrictscompetitionintherelevantmarket;(6)Iftheoperator’sexerciseofintellectualpropertyrightsexcludesorrestrictscompetitionintherelevantmarket,furtherexaminetheconductAndwhetherthebeneficialimpactisgreaterthanthenegativeimpactcausedbyexcludingorrestrictingtherelevantmarketcompetition.Thereisnosuchexpressionas"intellectualpropertyabuse"inthestatutorylawoftheUnitedStates.Instead,itseparatelystipulatesthespecificcircumstancesofpatentabuse,trademarkabuseandcopyrightabuse.Theearliestandmostimportantoneisthepatentmisuse..InMeitong,"patentabuse"oftendoesnotrestricttheuseofpatentlitigationasadefense.Althoughactsthatconstitutepatentinfringementcansometimesformthebasisofcounterclaims,patentabuseitselfisnotalitigableinfringement.Iftheaccusedinfringerfilesacounterclaimbasedontheso-calledabuse,thecounterclaimmustalsomeetalltherequirementsoftheindependentinfringementthatfiledthecounterclaim.Theresponsibilityforprovingtheabuselieswiththeaccusedinfringerorthelicenseewhoviolatedthecontract.Iftheabuseisdeterminedtobeestablished,thenthepatentrightwillberuledunenforceableuntiltheabuseis"eliminated."Therulingonabuseexcludestheexpectedinjunctivereliefandtheacquisitionofdamagesduringtheabuseperiod.Therefore,oncetheabuseisdetermined,theaccusedinfringerorthebreachinglicensee,aswellasanythirdparty,canusethepatentedtechnologyforfreeduringtheperiodbeforetheabuseiseliminated,①thuscreatingaspecialpatentintheU.S.PatentLawAbuseofthedefensesystem.However,withthegradualimprovementoftheantitrustlawsintheUnitedStates,theuseofantitrustregulationstocontroltheabuseofintellectualpropertyrightshasalsobecomeanimportantmeans,andithasalsoaffectedthedefinitionofintellectualpropertyabuse,thatis,majorintellectualpropertyabuseinthesenseofantitrustlaw.Antitrustlawsmustalsobeviolated.
Therelevantprovisionsofthe"Trade-relatedIntellectualPropertyAgreement"(hereinafterreferredtoastheTRIPSAgreement)undertheWTOframeworknotonlyclearlystipulatetheabuseofintellectualpropertyrights,butalsoprovidecorrespondingremedies.Forexample,Article8(2)oftheTRIPSAgreementstipulates:“ItmaybenecessarytotakeappropriatemeasuresconsistentwiththeprovisionsofthisAgreementtopreventintellectualpropertyownersfrommisusingintellectualpropertyrightsorimposingunreasonablerestrictionsontradeorimposinginternationalrestrictions.Technologytransferhasanadverseeffect."Article40,paragraph2states:"Thereisnoprovisioninthisagreementtopreventmemberpartiesfromspecifyingintheirlegislationtheknowledgethatmayhaveanadverseeffectoncompetitionintherelevantmarketundercertaincircumstances.Thepracticeorconditionsfortheuseofpatentrightsfortheabuseofpropertyrights.Asspecifiedabove,amembermaytakeappropriatemeasurestopreventorcontrolsuchpracticesinaccordancewithotherprovisionsofthisagreementandinaccordancewithrelevantdomesticlawsandregulations.Thesemeasuresmayinclude,forexample,exclusiveclaims.Grantconditions,preventdenialoflegalityconditions,andcompulsorypackagelicensetransactions.”Inaddition,Article41,paragraph1,Article48,paragraph1,Article50,paragraph3,andArticle63,paragraph1,oftheTRIPSAgreementTheseareallregulationsconcerningtheabuseofintellectualpropertyrights.
Asof2021,countriesdonothaveacleardefinitionofintellectualpropertyrights,andeveninmanycountriesthereisnosuchconcept.Practice.Generally,theviolationoftheanti-monopolylawandtheadverseimpactoncompetitioncausedbytheexerciseofintellectualpropertyrightsareregardedasintellectualpropertyabuse.Theessentialelementisthattheexerciseofrightsexcludesorrestrictsmarketcompetition.Therefore,theabuseofintellectualpropertyrightsistheresultofviolatingtheanti-monopolylaw,notaprerequisiteforviolatingtheanti-monopolylaw.Withinthescopeoftheanti-monopolylaw,itisnotbecauseoftheabuseofintellectualpropertyrightsthatviolatestheanti-monopolylaw,butbecauseoftheviolationoftheanti-monopolylaw,itconstitutestheabuseofintellectualpropertyrights.Iftheanti-monopolylawisnotviolated,thenthereisnoabuseproblem,butthelegalexerciseofintellectualpropertyrights.