標準必要專利競爭法管制之演變： 兼論我國高通案處分

我國公平交易委員會於2017年10月11日對高通（Qualcomm）公司作出高達234億新台幣之裁罰，引發國內各界對標準必要專利競爭法管制議題高度的重視。於2018年8月公平交易委員會與高通公司和解後，對高通公司處分之內容與和解之爭議亦引起學界與實務之討論。本文以標準必要專利之競爭法管制為主題，分就兩個層次加以探討。首先，透過檢視美國、中國、歐盟於標準必要專利競爭法管制脈絡上之發展，以立法、司法、行政三主軸為綱，並以歷史脈絡為紀，整理分析各國之規範與決定，歸納各國對於標準必要專利競爭法管制之重要見解與態度趨向。其中，美國對於標準必要專利的競爭法管制，過去為積極介入而今已趨於緩和，並傾向讓步於市場的自由競爭；中國、歐盟相對地則傾向於以積極的競爭法執法，來處理標準必要專利所引發的紛爭，中國甚至對此議題進行全面地立法。儘管世界主要經濟體對於標準必要專利的規制有不同的取徑，但目前世界各國對於高通反壟斷案，在不同的處罰基礎及行為認定下，卻有一致的競爭法執法立場，認為高通公司違反各國的競爭法規範，故本文第二部份，將就世界各國對於高通公司的反競爭法認定及處罰，加以分析比較。文末則以高通案涉及之重要競爭法爭點，以我國公平交易處分書為中心，參照比較法觀點加以分析，提供我國競爭法執法機關與法院未來處理相關議題上之借鏡。

關鍵字

標準必要專利；競爭法；高通反壟斷案； FRAND原則；標準制訂組織

並列摘要

Taiwan Fair Trade Commission (TFTC) fined Qualcomm with TWD 23.4 billion on October 11, 2017, which triggered a heated debate concerning competition law regulation on standard essential patents (SEPs). Centering on this issue, the thesis splits the discussion into the following two parts. Firstly, the article provides a comprehensive overview of evolving SEP regulation in different jurisdictions through analyzing competition law regulation in chronological order in the United States, China, and Europe Union. Among the jurisdictions, the United States used to actively intervene in SEP dispute but has become moderate nowadays. Instead, either China or Europe Union tends to apply competition law to SEP issue, and China even enacts new legislation on the issue. Despite the diverging national position, these countries seem to have converging competition law regulation on Qualcomm’s antimonopoly case. Therefore, the second part of the article analyses and compares the antimonopoly decisions against Qualcomm in different jurisdictions. Based on the comparison, the article in the end turns to TFTC’s Qualcomm decision and reviews the significant legal issue through comparative perspectives, which might serve as a reference for Taiwanese competition law agencies and courts in the future.