公平交易法之行政訴訟和解研究–以高通案為例

隨著國際上各國對於美國高通公司整體經營模式所涉行為，陸續作出處分或起訴，我國公平交易委員會不落於他國之後，亦因應相關產業競爭事業要求，著手調查高通公司標準必要專利授權是否違反公平交易法。歷經二年多之調查，無違國際趨勢，公平會對高通公司作成處分。我國處分之理由、內容與外國處分、判決極其類似，並未出乎各界意料。惟處分書理由與不同意見書見解分歧，甚至對構成公平交易法要件違反與否認定上具顯著差異。最重要者，對於與高通公司進行政和解與否，立場明顯不同。綜上所述，外界對於公平會的處分行為多有質疑。高通案進入行政訴訟程序後，卻於短時間達成訴訟上和解，該和解爭議點甚大、內容跟處分書差異甚巨；再者，法院及公平會亦無明確論述和解所據之理由，致生各界批評，不少學者撰文討論此爭議。是以，本文綜觀高通案，自公平會開啟調查程序、作成處分書至訴訟上和解，剖析各階段公平會、智慧財產法院作成處分及和解之程序，是否踐行正當行政程序；檢視程序上有影響決議、不適當之行為，評析未來程序上應注意事項；更以美國反托拉斯法案和解程序協議裁決之優點為鑒，對於未來公平會有關跨國性企業違反公平法案件之處理程序，提出建議要點如下：1.公平會應依正當行政程序職權調查案件事實與法律關係，並依據調查事實作成處分或和解﹔2.如何兼顧廠商營業秘密，提升行政程序及司法程序的透明性，使大眾能行使其監督權﹔3.除了應在透明程序下評估，亦應考量到利害關係第三人之權益，不應固守傳統見解，儘量使第三人能參與各階段程序，參與程序之權利保障，是實體權利保障基礎，更需著重公益性之判斷﹔4.以美國協議裁決之司法審查制度，作為公平會委員審議決議程序之監督之參考；5.增進和解條件履行監督制度透明度，使大眾得監督。

關鍵字

標準必要專利；訴訟上和解；正當行政程序；協議裁決；透明性；司法審查

並列摘要

With the increasing number of international disposition and prosecution of the US company Qualcomm’s activities and its business model, the Fair Trade Commission (FTC) in Taiwan, requested by the associated business competitor, started to investigate the conflict between Qualcomm’s Standard-Essential Patents (SEP) license and the Fair Trade Act (FTA). After the two-years investigation, most of the dispositions and judgments of FTA are identical to the international cases, and the reason and gist of the disposition meet the public expectation. Only the reason from the decision opposed to the dissenting opinion, still more, varies significantly on the acknowledge of the FTA violation component. Most importantly, it has a different point of view on whether Qualcomm should conduct an administrative reconciliation. Regarding these disagreements, the public still questions the credibility of the FTC’s decision. After involving in the administrative litigation procedure, Qualcomm got its settlement in a very short time. This settlement was questionable since the content of the decision varies with the dissenting opinion. Further, the court and the FTC did not clarify the reason for the settlement that resulted in the criticism from the public and many scholars’ analyses. Thus, this study examines the Qualcomm case, from the investigation of the FTC to the decision making of the court and the settlement, to evaluate if the procedure of the FCT and Intellectual Property Court meets the requirement of the administrative due process, and disclose the inappropriate actions that conceivably affect the decision making so that the precedent can be referred in the future procedure. By showing contrast with the US Antitrust cases, this study indicates five suggestions to the FTC’s administrative procedure regarding international corporation violating the FTA. First, the FTC must follow the administrative due process to analyze the evidence and the regulation to determine the execution of disposition or settlement. Second, the FTC must strike a balance between the business secret and the disclosure of administrative and judicial procedures to protect the public’s power of supervision. Third, alongside the investigation disclosure, the FTC should consider the right and interest of the third-party beneficiary. The FTC should break with traditional opinion and encourage the participation of the third-party beneficiary in any stage of the procedure. The protection of the participation right is the fundamental of substantive rights protection, and the FTC must emphasize judgment base on the public interest. Fourth, the FTC must refer to the judgment from the US judicial review system as supervision to their consideration procedure. Fifth, the FTC must effectuate the practice of settlement conditions, and provide the disclosure in supervision to protect the right of the public.