美国AAI第一次国际反垄断圆桌会议||全球反垄断中的关键问题:礼让、知识产权和正当程序(下)

   发布时间:2017-02-22 来源:AAI REPORT SUMMARIZES HIGHLIGHTS OF FIRST INTERNAT

    2017年2月8日,美国反垄断协会(AAI)举行了第一次国际反垄断的圆桌会议,题为“全球反垄断中的关键问题:礼让、知识产权和正当程序”。50多个不同的专家参与了一整天的活动和互动,他们分别来自商业、政府、学术界、实务界,以及还有一些公共利益共同体等。演讲嘉宾、小组成员和观众讨论了一些重要的法律、经济问题以及影响国际竞争政策的政治发展问题。其中,重点主题包括:(1)域外适用规则,礼让原则,以及体现在最近修订的联邦贸易委员会和反托拉斯国际执法合作的反垄断指南的合作实践;(2)不同国家的知识产权反垄断的处理方法,包括有关标准必要专利(SEP)和非执业实体(NPE);和(3)对外国司法管辖区的正当程序标准和改革途径的问题的关注。

On February 8, 2017, the American Antitrust Institute (AAI) held its first International Antitrust Roundtable, entitled Critical Issues in Global Antitrust: Comity, Intellectual Property, and Due Process. The interactive, full-day program brought together more than 50 diverse experts from business, government, academia, private practice, and the public interest community. Guest speakers, panelists and audience members discussed important legal, economic, and political developments affecting international competition policy. Key topics included (1)the extraterritoriality rules, comity principles, and cooperation practices reflected in recently revised Federal Trade Commission and Antitrust Division Antitrust Guidelines for International Enforcement and Cooperation;(2)varying international approaches to the antitrust treatment of intellectual property rights, including with respect to standard essential patents (SEPs) and non-practicing entities (NPEs); and (3) concerns over foreign jurisdictions’due process standards and pathways to reform.

  Limitations on Patent Enforcement:A Comparative International Assessment

(专利实施的限制:一种国际比较评估)

      第二版块集中在国际专利领域的四个问题:针对SEP侵权的禁令救济,最近涉及SEP滥用指控的案件,确定公平、合理和非歧视性(FRAND)特许权使用费的标准,以及国际知识产权处理方面的差异。小组成员包括犹他州大学法学院副教授Jorge Contreras,Crowell&Moring律师事务所资深律师Lisa Kimmel,John Marshall法学院副教授Daryl Lim和联邦贸易委员会政策规划办公室副主任和知识产权首席顾问Susanne Munck。
       该小组的主持人、AAI的副总裁兼总法律顾问Richard Brunell,开始引导讨论SEP案件中禁令救济的问题,为其他的SEP滥用问题设定了阶段。他建议,尽管人们普遍认为,已经做出FRAND承诺的SEP持有者不能获得对“愿意的被许可人”的禁令,但是该条款的定义和证明它的责任是不同的,限制的法律依据也是如此。在美国,SEP持有人通常不能获得禁令救济以作为在eBay下的侵权补救,可能无法根据“公共利益”标准获得国际贸易委员会(ITC)的排除令,并且可能承诺不公平的竞争方法,甚至在某些情况下威胁对愿意的被许可人寻求禁令救济。同时,专家组成员指出,欧洲各国的侵权补救措施也因国家而异,eBay或eBay类似标准并不适用。然而,欧盟SEP当事人在如中兴华为的案例中,在规定的框架下寻求禁令将可能面临反垄断责任。该框架创建了一个安全港,允许SEP所有者在侵权人不愿接受FRAND许可证或书面报价时,及时作出回应,寻求禁令。然而,如果被许可人被推定为及时、诚信、书面报价,则不能使用禁令。
       小组成员讨论了某一管辖区的强制令框架是否将SEP滥用排除,以符合美国反托拉斯法或剥削性滥用的重要性。他们还区分了所谓的SEP滥用是否构成违反FRAND的问题和关于违反FRAND是否产生反垄断责任的问题。
       接着,小组讨论了更复杂的利用SEP滥用的理论,这一理论反映在高通最近在世界各地的许可实践中的一系列挑战。在韩国和美国,高通公司被指控采用相互增强的杠杆行为,绝缘其专利的CDMA蜂窝技术垄断和芯片垄断。小组成员将根据第2节垄断关切与根植于FRAND滥用和过量特许权使用费的指控区分开来,一位专家认为,当指控植根于FRAND滥用时,很难使其跳跃到竞争法的违反层面上来。
       另一位小组成员强调,该案例有趣的是,拒绝授予FRAND条款与芯片销售的杠杆作用,这可能使实施者与高通的关系成为一个问题。小组成员还讨论了高通拒绝授予专利权是否将受到Trinko保护,以及FRAND承诺是否包括这种义务等问题。
       关于确定FRAND特许权使用费的方法问题,一名专家组成员指出,法官似乎在根据专利法的FRAND义务考虑合理性要求的伪合同性质方面,误认为损害被衡量为“合理”使用费。这可能导致在诉讼中出现一对一争议的时候,相同专利的估价非常不同。小组成员讨论了相对于假设的“自上而下”方法,法院采取的“自下而上”方法的缺点,其中FRAND担保专利的价值可以通过除以在给定产品上阅读的所有专利的总价值来推导。其他专家小组成员由于实际原因对自上而下的方法不那么看好,包括如何处理在这种情况下的现有的私下谈判的许可证,特别是因为这是主要的估价手段,只占总许可使用费的很小一部分。专家组还讨论了互问者,寻求宣告性判决和私人仲裁作为自上而下方法的一些不切实际的可能解决方案,但这些解决方案被认为是不完美的。
       专家组还讨论了与韩国、加拿大、日本和中国采用的知识产权指南相比较,最近对美国知识产权指南的修订情况。除此之外,小组讨论了美国指南中省略了涉及SEP和NPE的具体行为,其他国家的准则直接涉及。一位专家指出,美国的做法不仅包括指导方针,而且还包括随着时间的推移而进行的执法行动的书面决定,以及FTC最近的PAE报告中提到的其他指导。专家小组成员认为,美国指南全面考虑了具体行为的充分指导。
       在观众问答中,与会者对高通案例和损害理论发表了意见,并提出了一些问题,即某些亚洲司法管辖区对知识产权的敏感程度如何。虽然小组成员同意美国往往比世界上大多数国家更加敏感于知识产权,一位专家指出,有些国家比美国更敏感,所有这些国家之间的差异有点夸张。另一位专家指出,不同的国家可能应该有不同的专利规则,对一个国家运作良好的规则可能导致盗用和其他类似的滥用。

The second panel focused on four issues in the international patent domain: injunctive relief for SEP infringement, recent cases involving allegations of SEP abuse, standards for determining fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory (FRAND) royalties, and variances in the treatment of IP internationally. Panelists included Jorge Contreras, Associate Professor at the University of Utah College of Law, Lisa Kimmel, Senior Counsel at Crowell & Moring LLP, Daryl Lim, Associate Professor at the John Marshall Law School, and Susanne Munck, Chief Counsel for Intellectual Property and Deputy Director of the Office of Policy Planning at the Federal Trade Commission.
The panel moderator, Richard Brunell, Vice President and General Counsel of the AAI, began by leading a discussion on the availability of injunctive relief in SEP cases, which sets the stage for  other SEP-abuse issues. He suggested that while there is wide consensus that SEP holders that have made a FRAND commitment may not obtain injunctions against a “willing licensee,” the definition of the term—and burdens of proving it—vary, as does the legal basis for the limitation. In the United States, a SEP holder ordinarily cannot get injunctive relief as a remedy for infringement under eBay, may not be able to get an exclusion order from the International Trade Commission (ITC) under the “public interest” standard, and may commit an unfair method of competition by even threatening to seek injunctive relief against a willing licensee, at least in certain circumstances. In Europe, meanwhile, a panelist indicated that infringement remedies vary country-by-country, and an eBay or eBay-like standard does not apply. However, EU SEP owners may face antitrust liability for pursuing injunctions under a framework set forth in the ZTE Huawei case. The framework creates a safe harbor permitting SEP owners to seek injunctions where the infringer is unwilling to accept a FRAND license or make a timely response with a written offer. Injunctions are not available, however, if the putative licensee makes a timely, good-faith, written offer.
The panelists discussed the significance of whether a given jurisdiction’s injunction framework treats SEP abuse as exclusionary, consistent with U.S. antitrust law, or as an exploitative abuse. They also distinguished between the question of whether alleged SEP abuse constitutes a breach of FRAND and the separate question of whether a breach of FRAND creates antitrust liability.
The discussion then proceeded to more complicated leveraging theories of SEP abuse, as reflected in a spate of recent challenges to Qualcomm’s licensing practices around the world. In Korea and the United States, Qualcomm stands accused of mutually reinforcing leveraging behavior that insulates both its patent-based CDMA cellular technology monopoly and its chipset monopoly. The panelists distinguished between allegations rooted in Section 2 monopolization concerns and those rooted in FRAND abuse and excessive royalties, with one panelist arguing that it can be hard to make the leap to a competition law violation when the allegations are rooted in FRAND abuse.
Another panelist emphasized that what makes the case interesting is that the refusal to license on FRAND terms is tied into the leveraging of chip sales, which can turn an implementer’s relationship with Qualcomm into an existential question. The panelists also debated whether Qualcomm’s refusal to license patents would be protected under Trinko and whether FRAND commitments include such an obligation.
Turning to the issue of methodologies for determining FRAND royalties, one panelist noted that judges appear to have been led astray in considering the pseudo-contractual nature of the reasonableness requirement under a FRAND obligation relative to the patent law requirement that damages be measured as a “reasonable” royalty. This can lead to wildly different valuations of the same patents because of the nature in which one-on-one disputes arise in litigation. The panelist discussed the comparative drawbacks of this “bottom-up” approach taken in court relative to a hypothetical “top-down” approach, where the value of the FRAND-encumbered patent might be deduced by dividing from a total value of all patents that read on a given product. Other panelists were less sanguine about a top-down approach for practical reasons, including how to deal with pre- existing, privately negotiated licenses in this context, particularly since this is the dominant means of valuation and only a very small proportion of total licensing royalties are disputed. The panel also discussed interpleader, seeking declaratory judgments, and private arbitration as possible solutions to some of the impracticalities of a top-down approach, but these solutions were acknowledged to be imperfect.
The panel also discussed recent revisions to the U.S. IP guidelines in comparison with IP guidelines adopted in Korea, Canada, Japan and China. Among other things, the panel discussed the U.S. guidelines’ omission of specific conduct involving SEPs and NPEs, which other countries’ guidelines address directly. One panelist noted that the U.S. approach is encapsulated not just by guidelines, but by written decisions in enforcement actions that have evolved over time, as well as still other guidance like that found in the FTC’s recent PAE report. Considered in totality, the panelist argued, the U.S. approach provides ample guidance on specific conduct.
During audience Q&A, attendees voiced opinions on the Qualcomm cases and theories of harm,  and the question was raised whether certain Asian jurisdictions may be less sensitive to IP rights. While panelists agreed that the United States tends to be more sensitive to IP rights than most of the world, one panelist pointed out that there are countries that are more sensitive than the United  States and that the differences between all of those countries is somewhat exaggerated. Another panelist noted that different countries probably should have different patent rules, and rules that work well for one country could lead to misappropriation and similar abuses in others.

  Luncheon Keynote Address

(午餐主题演讲)

      午餐主题演讲由Agon咨询公司的Eduardo Pérez Motta发表,他是墨西哥联邦竞争委员会前主席和国际竞争网络前主席,演讲集中在贸易政治气氛转变和贸易倡导者未能充分解释其对选民的好处这两个方面。Pérez Motta坚持认为,外贸是世界上最重要的竞争和财富来源之一,但它的好处已经不成比例地流向富人,不平等随着时间的推移而增加。
       作为这种经济态势的结果,民粹主义的反全球化运动在多个国家的选举中失败。这个趋势表明,竞争市场的捍卫者没有通过两种重要的方式做他们的工作:首先,它们没有阻止市场低劣的结果,例如,如果执行者没有阻止积极的寻租,那么对我们当前的财富不平等状况的关注将更少地针对全球市场。第二,竞争性市场的捍卫者未能阐明全球贸易的好处及其帮助解决社会问题的方式。
      与会者向Pérez Motta询问全球主义的净效应问题,包括关于移民和难民政策的影响。Pérez Motta表示他坚决捍卫全球贸易。

The luncheon keynote address was delivered by Eduardo Pérez Motta of Agon Consulting, who is the former Chairman of the Mexican Federal Competition Commission and former Chair of the International Competition Network. The address focused on the shifting political atmosphere on trade and the failure of trade advocates to adequately explain its benefits to voters. Pérez Motta maintained that foreign trade is one of the most important sources of competition and wealth in the world, but its benefits have gone disproportionately to the wealthy, with inequality increasing over time.
As a result of this dynamic, populist anti-globalization movements have upset elections in multiple countries and are poised to gain more influence. This trend suggests that defenders of competitive markets have failed to do their jobs in two important ways. First, they have failed to prevent markets from achieving subpar results. If enforcers had not failed to prevent aggressive rent seeking, for example, then less of the concern for our current state of wealth inequality would be directed at global markets. Second, defenders of competitive markets have failed to articulate the benefits of global trade and the ways that it helps solve social problems.
Attendees asked Pérez Motta about the net effect of globalism, including with respect to immigration and refugee policy. Pérez Motta defended global trade and touted the benefits of competitive markets that lead to improved economic circumstances.

   Global Due Process Standards: Where Are We, and Where Are We Heading?

(全球正当程序标准:我们在哪里,我们要走向何方?)     

    当天的最后一个小组讨论的焦点是对世界竞争执行制度提供正当程序保护,以及关于这方面所取得的进展。小组成员包括Clearly Gottlieb Steen&Hamilton LLP布鲁塞尔办事处的合伙人Maurits Dolmans,爱立信竞争和知识产权总监Dina Kallay,联邦贸易委员会国际事务副主任Elizabeth Kraus以及Vice英特尔总裁兼总顾问Greg Slater。
      主持人Don Baker是Baker&MillerPLLC的创始合伙人,他解释了全球诉讼的高风险,其中在多个管辖区内的公司在任何单一制度下都会因欠发达的正当程序保护而受到损失。该小组由Maurits Dolmans的演讲开始。
       专家小组成员还讨论了透明度问题。例如,一些管辖区的执行者保存单独的正式和非正式案件档案,尽管其中包含相关证据,但各方被剥夺了对这些材料的访问权。一个小组成员介绍了一个相关的轶事。
       即使存在保护一方当事人获取相关信息的权利的规则,也可能不够远。例如,专家组成员指出,尽管欧洲委员会的程序要求每次会议须有记录,但“记录”可能只包括会议发生而没有对其内容进行审查的事实。一位专家强调,需要注意这些记录的细微之处。
       另一个被提出的问题是律师的有效协助权利。特别是一些国家不承认律师-客户特权保护与内部法律顾问之间的通信。在跨国程序重叠的情况下,这可能导致不合理结果,即在美国另有特权和不可受理的文件被作为另一国的证据,如果同一文件在另一个国家被缉获的话。
       专家小组成员还讨论了执行者对第三方投诉人过于友好待遇相关的风险。在一个例子中,专题小组成员指出,外国机构使用与申诉人相同的外部律师;在另一种情况下,该机构允许申诉人的律师直接参与审讯程序和听证会,他们可能会接触到机密的商业信息。在一个国家,竞争管理机构甚至向申诉人的律师提供办公空间。
       另一个值得关注的是,委员们有时不亲自参加听证会却被要求做决定。专案小组成员指出,即使有制度确保专员能够获得公平的法律程序报告,专员的缺席仍会对一方的论据产生抑制作用,特别是当证人不能在专员面前交叉审问时。
       专家小组讨论了几种改进审判制度中正当程序保护的方法,例如在诉讼中使用专门的“恶魔倡导者”,使用同行审查小组,加强听证官的作用,以及确保严格的司法审查。贸易协定条款,如美国-韩国协定中所载的规定,也可以是一个有用的工具。一些外国司法管辖区(例如韩国和台湾)被受访者说服提供某些权利,因为它加强了该机构的最终决定。据指出,欧盟和韩国的强有力的司法审查迫使竞争管理当局改进其程序。一位小组成员建议,韩国在某些方面比欧盟在程序保护方面更胜一筹。
        主持人还提出了ABA过渡报告的建议,即美国机构干预外国程序,倡导正当程序保护。一位专家指出,这种形式的公开演讲可能会起反作用,因为美国的批评可能会导致其他地方当局“围绕旗帜”。就干预的性质而言,还有法律地位的问题。另一位专家认为,通过贸易协定或通过像ICN这样的组织进行多边合作的双边合作可能会更加有效。坦率地说,在机构合作方面的非正式讨论可能是最有效的。在过去的情况下,例如微软,GE-Honeywell等公众对抗在很大程度上是没有帮助的。
       在观众问答期间,与会者询问了对传统上被视为超越竞争法范围的公共政策考虑的调用的增加。专家组成员承认,各机构正在努力解决政治可见度问题,并受到压力考虑采取工业政策,而不仅仅专注于竞争。一位专家说,最近的Brexit决定意味着这种做法可能在欧洲增加。另一位小组成员对美国可以在特朗普政府下开始这样做表示关切。

The final panel of the day centered on concerns about procedural due process protections afforded by many of the world’s competition enforcement regimes, and the progress that some countries have made. Panelists included Maurits Dolmans, a Partner in the Brussels office of Clearly Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP, Dina Kallay, Director of Competition and Intellectual Property at Ericsson, Elizabeth Kraus, Deputy Director for International Affairs at the Federal Trade Commission, and Greg Slater, Vice President and General Counsel at Intel.
The moderator, Don Baker, a Founding Partner at Baker & Miller PLLC, set the stage by explaining the high stakes of global litigation where companies litigating in multiple jurisdictions have more to lose from under-developed due process protections in any single regime. The panel kicked off with a slide presentation by Maurits Dolmans and a discussion of the due process challenges associated with civil law inquisitorial systems as compared to common law adversarial systems, including the risk of confirmation bias in inquisitorial systems where the fact-finder is also the decision-maker.
Panelists also discussed problems with transparency. Some jurisdictions’ enforcers, for example, keep separate formal and informal case files, with parties being deprived of access to the latter despite its containing relevant evidence. One panelist relayed an anecdote about learning of exculpatory evidence possessed by foreign enforcers only through discovery in the United States.
Even when rules exist to protect a party’s right to access relevant information, the rules may not go far enough. Panelists noted, for example, that while European Commission procedures require a record of every meeting, the ‘record’ may include only the fact that the meeting occurred without any accounting of its contents. One panelist emphasized, however, that nuance is called for.
Defendants don’t necessarily have a claim to all information that is collected; what is essential is that they have access to all of the information that will be used against them for purposes of making rebuttal arguments.
Another concern raised was the right to effective assistance of counsel. In particular, some countries do not recognize attorney-client privilege protections for communications with in-house counsel. In the context of overlapping multinational proceedings, this can lead to anomalous results whereby a document that is otherwise privileged and inadmissible in the United States is entered into evidence because the same document was seized in a different country.
Panelists also discussed risks associated with enforcers’ overly friendly treatment of third-party complainants. In one example, a panelist pointed out that a foreign agency used the same outside counsel as a complainant; in another, the agency allowed complainant’s counsel to participate directly in interrogation proceedings and hearings, where they may be exposed to confidential business information. In one country, a competition authority even gave office space to a complainant’s lawyers.
Another concern is that Commissioners are sometimes asked to make decisions without ever attending hearings in person. Panelists noted that, even if there are systems in place to ensure that the Commissioner will get a fair report of the proceedings, the Commissioner’s absence nonetheless could have a dampening effect on a party’s arguments, particularly where witnesses cannot be cross- examined in front of the Commissioner.
Panelists discussed several ways to improve due process protections in inquisitorial systems, such as having a dedicated “devil’s advocate” in proceedings, using peer review panels, strengthening the role of the hearing officer, and ensuring rigorous judicial review. Trade agreement provisions, like those contained in the U.S.-Korea agreement, can also be a useful tool. Some foreign jurisdictions (e.g., Korea and Taiwan) have been persuaded by respondents to provide certain rights because it strengthens the agency’s ultimate decision. It was noted that strong judicial review in the EU and Korea has forced the competition authorities to improve their processes. One panelist suggested that Korea scored better than the EU on procedural protections in some respects.
The moderator also raised the ABA Transition Report’s recommendation that U.S. agencies intervene in foreign proceedings to advocate for due process protections. One panelists noted that this form of public lecturing could backfire, as the effect of U.S. criticism may be to lead authorities elsewhere to “rally around the flag.” Also there are questions of legal standing, depending on the nature of the intervention. Another panelist opined that bilateral cooperation through trade agreements or multilateral cooperation through organizations like the ICN are likely to be far more effective. And frank, informal discussion in the context of agency cooperation may be most effective of all. Public confrontation was largely unhelpful in past cases like Microsoft, GE-Honeywell, and others.
During audience Q&A, attendees asked about the rise in invocations of public policy considerations that have traditionally been considered beyond the scope of competition law. Panelists acknowledged that agencies are struggling with issues of political visibility and are being pressured to take industrial policy into consideration instead of focusing solely on competition. One panelist said that the recent Brexit decision means that this practice may increase in Europe. Another panelist expressed concern that America could begin doing so under the Trump Administration. 

本站所提供资源仅供个人学习、研究使用,版权归原作者所有,如若下载、复制,请在24小时内删除!