材料转移协议中延展性权利条款的竞争法分析及规制  

Competition Law Analysis and Regulation of Reach-through Rights Clause in Material Transfer Agreements

作　　者：万志前[1] 张成 WAN Zhi-qian;ZHANG Cheng(College of Humanity&Law,Huazhong Agricultural University,Wuhan 430070,China)

机构地区：[1]华中农业大学文法学院,武汉430070

出　　处：《科技与法律》2020年第6期48-57,共10页Science Technology and Law

基　　金：国家社会科学基金资助项目“植物新品种知识产权保护困境与制度创新研究”(16BFX168);华中农业大学自主科技创新基金“知识产权支撑乡村振兴的法政策研究”(2662019PY042)。

摘　　要：生物材料转移协议(MTA)作为生物材料转移的主要路径,是影响生物产业发展的重要因素。鉴于生物材料的工具属性,延展性权利条款成为MTA中常见的限制性条款,基于契约自由原则,该条款存在一定合理性,但也可能产生限制竞争的效果,仍需接受竞争法的检视。通过考察各国立法样态、执法和司法实践,MTA中的延展性许可费条款一般不违反竞争法,除非该条款强制要求材料接受方对未使用材料的研发产品支付许可费。回授条款应首先检视其排他性,独占性回授条款具有违法性,非独占性回授条款需依对价、互惠等因素作进一步分析。为促进生物材料转移,我国应参照国际和他国先例,完善延展性权利条款,制定MTA标准模板,以供生物材料交易双方参考借鉴。Material transfer agreement(MTA),as the main path of biomaterial transfer,is an important factor affecting the development of biological industry.In view of the tool nature of biomaterials,the reach-through rights clause has become a common restrictive clause in MTA,which takes the freedom of contract as its legal basis,but needs to be re⁃viewed by competition law because it may have the effect of restricting competition.Examining the legislative patterns,law enforcement and judicial practices of various countries,the reach-through royalty clause in MTA generally does not violate the competition law,unless it compels the material recipient to pay license fees for R&D products without using the materials.The grant-back clause should be examined first,the exclusive grant-back clause is illegal,and the non-grant-back clause should be further analyzed according to the factors such as consideration,reciprocity and so on.In order to promote the transfer of biomaterials,China should refer to the precedents of international and other countries,perfect the reach-through rights clause in MTA,and formulate MTA standard template,which can be used as a reference for both parties in the trading of biomaterials.

关 键 词：生物材料转移协议 延展性权利条款 延展性许可费 回馈授权 竞争法 

分 类 号：D912.29[政治法律—民商法学]