2015年7月20日下午14時30分，由美國加州司法部反托拉斯法副總檢察長Emilio Varanini（米力歐·委銳尼尼）先生主講的“反托拉斯法與智慧財產權濫用”專題講座在福田區公共法律服務中心成功舉辦，本所陳方主任率領陳華鑫、冀玉婷、牛萬春、魏凡等智慧財產權團隊成員出席講座。
In the afternoon of July 20th, 2015, Emilio Varanini, Deputy Attorney General of California Attorney General’s Office responsible for antitrust, gives a speech titled “antitrust laws and intellectual property rights abuse” at Futian District’s center for public legal services. Sincere Qianhai’s president Mr. Chen Fang attended the speech along with Chen Huaxin, Ji Yuting, Niu Wanchun and Wei Fan, members of its intellectual property team.
智慧財產權法是通過賦予權利人以排他權利來保護創新成果，這與反壟斷法限制排他、保護市場經濟競爭度的目的相衝突，那麼，如何平衡智慧財產權與反壟斷法之間的衝突就成為中美兩國乃至全世界各國均面臨的難題。有鑑於此，Emilio Varanini先生結合實例重點介紹了在美國是如何平衡智慧財產權保護與反壟斷之間的衝突的：
Intellectual property right law protects innovation by giving right holders an exclusive right which conflicts with antitrust law’s goal of limiting exclusivity and of preserving market competitiveness. Therefore, to balance IP and antitrust remains a difficult task for the U.S., China and other countries. Mr. Emilio Varanini’s speech focuses on how the U.S. balance the conflict by examining five principles.
第一，棒球棒原則——不能用反競爭行為來豁免反競爭行為。智慧財產權保護的目的在於鼓勵創新而不在於形成市場壟斷、排除和限制競爭。智慧財產權不能成為違反反壟斷法行為的避風港，其作為一種法定的壟斷權仍然要受到反壟斷法的規制，如Microsoft案。
The first principle is the “baseball bat” rule. It means that anti-competitiveness conduct cannot be excused by saying anti-competitiveness conduct is involved. IP right’s purpose is to encourage innovation and not to promote market monopoly, exclusivity and limited competition. IP cannot shield other antitrust violations. Being a legal monopoly right, IP right is still subject to antitrust law. Microsoft’s case is an excellent example.
第二，切勿越過權利邊界——在政府給予的權利範圍內行使權利。肆無忌憚的拓展權利邊界將導致智慧財產權濫用，這是反壟斷法所不允許的，美國聯邦最高法院在Marvel案（蜘蛛俠案，2015）的判決中重申了此項原則。
The second principle of “can’t take more than what the government gives you” guards against extension of property right past scope of grant. Extending the scope of right without limitation would lead to abuse of IP right, disallowed by antitrust laws. The U.S. Supreme Court reaffirmed this principle recently in its 2015 Marvel decision.
第三，不要以侵害消費者利益為代價與競爭對手達成協議以分割市場（或壟斷利潤）。如品牌藥（專利藥品）的廠商之間達成專利和解以抵制非專利藥物（質等價廉的藥品）進入相關市場，美國法院已明確該協議不能使已經到期的專利藥品所涉專利保護期延長。此外，在專利藥品與非專利藥品廠商之間達成協議的問題上的分歧，最近也有了新進展，如Actavis and In re CiproⅠ&Ⅱ案。
The third principle says one cannot use the settlement to split the market (and monopoly profits) with one’s competitor at the expense of consumers. In the event that name-brand medicine (IP medicine) producers reach an agreement among themselves in order to exclude non-IP medicine with the same property and lower price from certain market, U.S. courts have indicated that the agreement cannot extend the term of protection if the IP medicine’s IP is expired. There is a recent development on the question of an agreement between IP producers and non-IP producers in the case of Actavis and In re CiproⅠ&Ⅱ.
第四，不要讓智慧財產權變的棘手或以欺詐手段取得許可。如有清晰有力的證據證明專利權人是通過欺詐手段獲得專利的，法院可認定該行為違反反壟斷法。Emilio Varanini先生以美國著名的Tricor（非諾貝特）專利為例闡述這一原則。該專利是一項涉及降血脂的藥品專利，在專利即將到期時，權利人試圖通過在藥品的形式以及劑量上進行微調來獲取一個新的專利，以便重新獲得20年的保護期，從而達到獲得巨額壟斷利潤、限制類似非專利藥品進入市場的目的。
The fourth principle declares that IP right should not be obtained through fraudulent means. If clear evidence shows that an IP right holder obtained a patent through fraudulent means, a court can rule that the act is violating antitrust law. Mr. Emilio Varanini explains the principle with the example of Tricor. An IP-medicine that lowers blood fat, its holder attempts to acquire a new patent and regain the 20-years protection by slightly alter the form and dosage of the medicine, in order to grab mass monopoly profit and exclude similar non-IP medicine from the market.
第五，智慧財產權與搭售行為。除欺詐、達成和解協定等不正當競爭方式外，搭售也是一種典型的智慧財產權濫用行為。在智慧財產權許可中，許可人常常通過設置限制條件將非專利技術或者非必要的專利技術捆綁許可給被許可人。如，微軟出售Windows作業系統時就涉嫌搭售了IE流覽器，華為與高通的訴訟案中，法院認為高通公司在許可華為公司標準必要專利時搭售了不良專利，同時高通公司憑藉標準必要專利的強勢地位要求華為公司以不合理的價值向高通公司進行反向許可。
The fifth principle: other than above-mentioned unfair practice, conditional sale is a classical abuse of IP right. In IP right licensing, licensor, by setting limiting conditions, usually sells non-IP or unnecessary technology to licensee. Microsoft, for example, sells its browser Internet Explorer along with its Windows operating system. In the lawsuit between Huawei and Qualcomm, the court find that Qualcomm, in licensing Huawei for necessary technology, sells unnecessary technology in conjunction; Qualcomm also leverages its strong position as a holder of necessary standard IP to demand Huawei to “reverse license” Qualcomm at unfair price.
第六，標準制定——做出有分量的承諾。遵循披露、F/RAND（公平、合理、無歧視價格）、互惠原則。Emilio Varanini先生舉例華為與高通案、華為與交互數字集團（IDG）案闡述該原則。
The sixth principle-to establish standard and to make substantial commitment. Mr. Emilio Varanini examines the principle of disclosure, Fair， Reasonable And Non-Discriminatory, mutual-benefit with examples of Huawei v. Qualcomm and Huawei v. IDG.
在講座互動環節，曾留學香港和英國的我所智慧財產權團隊代表冀玉婷在會上用標準熟練的英文同Emilio Varanini先生就商業秘密的保護問題進行了友好交流。她提出在美國除了簽訂《競業禁止協定》外，有無更好地保護企業商業秘密的措施和方法。Emilio Varanini先生建議企業可以通過對文檔建立分級保密制度，設置高級機密的審閱權，來降低商業秘密被洩露的風險。
During interaction, Ji Yuting, who studied in Hong Kong and United Kingdom and represents Sincere Qianhai’s IP team, communicates with Emilio Varanini in standard English on the subject of commercial secret protection. She inquires if there is a better way to protect company trade secret other than signing the non-compete agreement. Emilio Varanini suggests that company should lower the risk by setting various level of security clearance for accessing documents.
陳方主任對Emilio Varanini先生的到來表示熱烈的歡迎，同時對主辦方的精心準備表示感謝。陳方主任說：前海是一個全新創新發展的區域，在該區域內新的業態、創新商業模式不斷湧現，但面臨法律監管的空白，為進一步營造良好的營商環境、鼓勵保護創新，如何對商業模式的創新進行保護？Emilio Varanini先生表示美國也面臨創新商業模式如何保護的問題，但是在美國較難對商業模式予以智慧財產權保護，除非該商業模式確有顯著的創新之處。商業模式創新往往採用商業秘密的保護方式，但對於非常超前的商業模式仍然有獲得專利保護的可能。
Mr. Chen Fang expresses warm welcome to Mr. Varanini and thanks the host for its preparation. He says, in Qianhai, being a zone for innovative development, a lot of new business model are emerging, but they have no government regulation. He asks, how should one protect the innovation of new business models? Mr. Varanini says the U.S. is also facing the problem, but in U.S. it’s difficult to protect a business model with IP right, unless the business model is significantly innovative. Business model innovation is usually better protected as a trade secret, but extremely innovative business model can still possibly be protected as an IP.
日前，星辰前海律師也參與了起草《前海深港合作區創新保護條例》的調研工作，聽取了相關部門、協會、企業對前海創新保護的意見和建議。星辰前海律師積極參與智慧財產權相關話題的討論、為商業模式等創新保護所作出的努力贏得Emilio Varanini先生及與會人員的尊重。通過此次交流，星辰前海律師進一步加深了對反壟斷法與智慧財產權濫用的認識，並瞭解美國近期對相關問題的有益做法。星辰前海律師會一如既往的關注前海新業態、支援商業模式等創新保護，並樂於且有能力為創新保護提供高端、專業的法律支援。
Recently, Sincere Qianhai lawyers participates in researching the drafting of the Qianhai Shenzhen Hong Kong Cooperation Zone Innovation Protection Rules and listens to advices of government offices, business associations and companies on protecting Qianhai’s innovation. Sincere Qianhai’s active role in protecting IP and its contribution to the dialogue and to protecting new business models earns the respect of Mr. Varanini and other attendees. Through this dialogue, Sincere Qianhai lawyers enrich their understanding of antitrust and abuse of IP and learn recent good practice on the subject in the U.S. Sincere Qianhai will, as always, observe Qianhai’s new business model, support the protection of new business model and capable of providing legal support for the protection of innovation.