Essentiality and Standards-Essential Patents
Essentiality and Standards-Essential Patents
复制标题
必要性和标准-必要专利
DOI：
10.1017/9781316416723.016
复制
发表时间：
2017
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
J. Contreras
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
J. Contreras
大多数标准开发组织(SDO)都采取了要求参与者披露和/或许可对实施SDO的标准至关重要的专利的政策。这些标准-基本专利(SEP)的许可通常必须是免版税或版税的，其条款是公平、合理和非歧视性的(FRAND)。相反，不是这些标准必不可少的专利不需要以合理的条款获得许可，理论上可能会完全被市场拒之门外。因此，SDO披露和许可政策的一个关键要素是如何将专利(或专利权利要求)归类为标准的“关键”，以及在实践中需要什么重要性。本章讨论SDO专利政策中“基本”一词的解释，重点是政策措辞和变体，以及考虑过这一问题的监管和司法裁决。
Most standards-development organizations (SDOs) have adopted policies requiring that participants either disclose and/or license patents that are essential to the implementation of the SDO’s standards. Licenses of these standards-essential patents (SEPs) must generally be royalty-free or royalty-bearing on terms that are fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory (FRAND). Conversely, patents that are not essential to such standards need not be licensed on reasonable terms, and in theory may be withheld entirely from the market. Accordingly, a key element of SDO disclosure and licensing polices is how patents (or patent claims) are classified as “essential” to a standard, and what essentiality entails in practice. This chapter addresses the interpretation of the term “essential” within SDO patent policies, focusing both on policy language and variants, as well as regulatory and judicial rulings that have considered this question.