合理原则与专利权范围  

The Rule of Reason And The Scope of The Patent

作　　者：赫伯特·霍温坎普(著) 张燕欣(译) Herbert Hovenkamp(University of Pennsylvania,Philadelphia PA-19104)

机构地区：[1]宾夕法尼亚大学“詹姆斯·G·迪南”,费城PA-19104 [2]北京市第三中级人民法院,北京100102

出　　处：《内蒙古师范大学学报（哲学社会科学版）》2021年第2期36-56,共21页Journal of Inner Mongolia Normal University：Philosophy and Social Sciences Edition

基　　金：国家社科基金后期资助重点项目(20FFXA004)研究成果之一。

摘　　要：伴随"专利权范围"由专利法扩展至反托拉斯法,该理论逐渐被广泛应用于专利许可协议或其他专利相关协议的评估,以及专利侵权纠纷之中。但"专利权范围"并非反托拉斯分析的有效工具,并可能导致比诉讼途径更有利可图的高社会成本的合谋协议,不必要地增大了法院反托拉斯评估中合理原则的适用难度。专利法的发展已在相当程度上与专利市场运作的所有重要研究相脱离之现状使反托拉斯政策更具相对优势,一套更好的规则应将专利行为划分为授予前行为与授予后行为。前者通常豁免于反托拉斯审查,而后者应分为《专利法》授权行为与未授权行为,未经《专利法》授权的授予后行为通常应接受反托拉斯审查。关于创新动机之权衡,反托拉斯法亦相较专利法拥有更加配套的评估工具。As“beyond the scope of the patent”doctrine imported from patent law into antitrust law,it has been widely used to assess license agreements or other contracts involving patents,as well as patent infringement lawsuits.Howere,it is not a helpful tool for antitrust analysis,which could result in socially costly collusive agreements that were more profitable for the parties than the litigated solution and make applying of the rule of reason to antitrust claims unnecessarily difficult.The reality that patent law has developed in relative isolation from any significant inquiry into how patents function in the marketplace gives antitrust policy a comparative advantage.A better pair of rules divides patent practices into pre-and post-issuance,generally immunizing the former from antitrust scrutiny.Post-issuance practices must then be divided into those that are authorized by the Patent Act and those that are not.A post-issuance practice that is not authorized by the Patent Act should ordinarily be subject to antitrust review.Also,be antitrust policy given a comparative tool kit for assessing innovation efforts.

关 键 词：合理原则 专利权范围 反托拉斯审查 专利侵权 

分 类 号：D912.294[政治法律—民商法学]