網頁

2016年7月14日 星期四

歐盟最高法院:不侵權還是要依約付權利金,除非......


JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (First Chamber) (CURIA, July 7, 2016)

PRESS RELEASE, Court of Justice of the European Union (July 7, 2016)

Royalties payable even if patented technology is not infringed, says EU court judgement (www.thepharmaletter.com, July 7, 2016)


歐盟最高法院於7月6日就專利授權合約與競爭法相關的爭議,做出了重要見解:

如果被授權人可以在合理通知之後任意解除合約,那麼歐洲聯盟運作條約 (Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, TFEU) 第101 (1) 條不禁止要求被授權人在專利被撤銷或不侵權的情況下,於合約有效期間內支付權利金以使用專利技術。

以下簡單整理本案重點供參考。


案件背景事實

Behringwerke AG於1992年8月6日授權 Genentech Inc. ("Genentech") 使用人類巨細胞病毒增強技術 (human cytomegalovirus enhancer)。依合約的第3.1條,Genentech需支付的權利金如下:

  • a one-off fee of 20 000 Deutschmarks (DM) (approximately EUR 10 225);
  • a fixed annual research fee of DM 20 000;
  • a running royalty equivalent to 0.5% of the net sales of the finished products by the licensee and its affiliated companies and sub-licensees. 
 (判決文第6段) 

合約中關於 "finished products" 的定義為:

[C]ommercially marketable goods incorporating a licensed product, sold in a form enabling them to be administered to patients for therapeutic purposes or to be used in a diagnostic procedure, and which are not intended or marketed for reformulation, processing, repackaging or relabeling before use.  (判決文第7段)

關於 "licensed products" 的定義則為:

[M]aterials (including organisms) in respect of which the manufacture, use or sale would, in the absence of this agreement, infringe one or more unexpired claims included in the rights attached to the patents under licence.  (判決文第7段)

Genentech運用了這個人類巨細胞病毒增強技術進行DNA序列轉錄,以生產含有 rituximab這個成分的產品。這個產品在美國叫做Rituxan,在歐洲叫做MabThera。然而,Genentech只支付第一項與第二項的金額,從未支付第三項的running royalty。

Behringwerke AG後來變成Hoechst GmbH ("Hoechst")。在2008年6月30日,Hoechst旗下的Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland ("Sanofi") 要求Genentech支付runnung royalty。Genentech遂於2008年8月27日通知Sanofi,自2008年10月28日起解除合約。

有鑑於此,Sanofi於2008年10月27日在美國東德州起訴Genentech專利侵權,Genentech則於同一天在北加州地方法院提起專利無效之訴。兩個訴訟後來合併到北加州地院。北加州地院認為Genentech沒有侵權,聯邦巡迴上訴法院於2012年3月22日駁回Sanofi的上訴,確定Genentech沒有侵權。

(這邊有個有趣的點:為什麼Genentech沒有侵權。這跟claim寫作有關,有興趣者請參考美國聯邦巡迴上訴法院的判決文。)

在此同時,Hoechst於2008年10月24日依授權合約中的仲裁條款,提出國際仲裁。2012年9月5日仲裁的第三部分判定Genentech應該要依合約支付running royalty;2013年2月25日仲裁的最終結果與第四部分判定Genentech應支付108,322,850歐元的損害賠償。

Genentech請求法國上訴法院撤銷仲裁判斷。法國上訴法院在審理過程中,發現依這份專利授權合約,即使專利被撤銷而自始無效,被授權人仍然需要支付running royalty。於是法國上訴法院中止訴訟,並就這點詢問歐盟最高法院,這份授權合約是否違反TFEU 101(1)的規定。


歐盟最高法院見解

直接講重點:

首先,歐盟最高法院把爭點釐清為:TFEU 101(1)條是否應被解釋成禁止當專利被無效或是不侵權時,在合約有效期間內依合約支付權利金;

[T]he question raised by the referring court must be understood as asking, in essence, whether Article 101(1) TFEU must be interpreted as precluding, under a licence agreement such as that at issue in the main proceedings, the imposition on the licensee of an obligation to pay a royalty for the use of a patented technology for the entire period during which that agreement was in effect, in the event of the revocation or non-infringement of patents protecting that technology.  (判決文第35段)

關於此爭點,Genentech跟西班牙政府認為禁止,Hoechst、法國政府與荷蘭政府認為不禁止。

歐盟最高法院認為,首先,之前在Ottung案中,歐盟最高法院就已經說過,即使專利有效期過了,在合約有效期間內依約支付權利金沒有問題,因為那有可能反映了某些商業評估。在此情況下,只要被授權人可以在合理通知後任意解除合約,合約就不會落入TFEU 101(1) 條的禁止範圍:

[T]he obligation to pay a royalty, even after the expiry of the period of validity of the licensed patent, may reflect a commercial assessment of the value to be attributed to the possibilities of exploitation granted by the licence agreement, especially when that obligation to pay was embodied in a licence agreement entered into before the patent was granted (judgment of 12 May 1989 in Ottung, 320/87, ECR, EU:C:1989:195, paragraph 11). In such circumstances, where the licensee may freely terminate the agreement by giving reasonable notice, an obligation to pay a royalty throughout the validity of the agreement cannot come within the scope of the prohibition set out in Article 101(1) TFEU (judgment of 12 May 1989 in Ottung, 320/87, EU:C:1989:195, paragraph 13).  (判決文第39段)

專利授權金的本質,是被授權技術的商業開發代價,這個代價換來的是授權人保證不主張其工業財產權。只要合約有效,而且可以任意解除,那麼依合約付權利金就沒有限制市場自由競爭的問題:

Article 101(1) TFEU does not prohibit the imposition of a contractual requirement providing for payment of a royalty for the exclusive use of a technology that is no longer covered by a patent, on condition that the licensee is free to terminate the contract. That assessment is based on the finding that that royalty is the price to be paid for commercial exploitation of the licensed technology with the guarantee that the licensor will not exercise its industrial-property rights. As long as the licence agreement at issue is still valid and can be freely terminated by the licensee, the royalty payment is due, even if the industrial-property rights derived from patents which are granted exclusively cannot be used against the licensee due to the fact that the period of their validity has expired. In the light of such circumstances, in particular the fact that the licence may be freely terminated by the licensee, the contention may be rejected that the payment of a royalty undermines competition by restricting the freedom of action of the licensee or by causing market foreclosure effects.   (判決文第40段)

因此從Ottung案出發,歐盟最高法院認為,如果被授權人可以在合理通知之後任意解除合約,那麼歐洲聯盟運作條約 (Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, TFEU) 第101 (1) 條不禁止要求被授權人在專利被撤銷或不侵權的情況下,於合約有效期間內支付權利金以使用專利技術:

On those grounds, the Court (First Chamber) hereby rules:
Article 101(1) TFEU must be interpreted as not precluding the imposition on the licensee, under a licence agreement such as that at issue in the main proceedings, of a requirement to pay a royalty for the use of a patented technology for the entire period in which that agreement was in effect, in the event of the revocation or non-infringement of a licenced patent, provided that the licensee was able freely to terminate that agreement by giving reasonable notice.  (判決文最後一段)

討論


依據本案的授權合約,"licensed product" 指的是 "如果沒有這份合約就會侵權" 的產品,"finish product" 指的是含有licensed product的產品。所以如果專利不侵權,那麼Genentech的產品,到底還是不是專利授權合約中定義的 "licensed product" 或 "finished product",很值得討論。

關於這個問題,仲裁人已經依德國法認定,Genentech還是應該要支付權利金,言下之意是Genentech的產品仍然是專利授權合約中定義的 "licensed product" 或 "finished product"。這點在判決文第32段有交代,看起來仲裁人是依當事人的真意,解釋合約的文字而得到這個結論的。

這要是我是Genentech,我也不服氣。也難怪Genentech要跑去法國法院撤銷仲裁判斷了。可惜歐盟最高法院沒有直接處理這個問題,可能回到法國法院還有得吵。

此外,Genentech也曾經跑到美國北加州地方法院,請求防訴禁制令 (anti-suit injunction) 以中止Hoechst提出的國際仲裁,只是美國北加州地方法院沒有給這個禁制令,且聯邦巡迴上訴法院支持北加州地方法院的決定。若對這個部分有興趣,請看這裡。這個跨國的訴訟策略,值得參考學習。往後在A國提訴訟或仲裁,可能要先想一下,會不會有B國法院的anti-suit injunction的問題。

還有,關於專利授權合約的任意終止,往後法務在審閱專利授權合約時,可能要思考一下。如果不能任意終止,在歐洲會不會有TFEU 101(1) 條的問題呢?先諮詢一下歐洲律師吧。

最後,歐盟最高法院的這個見解,能不能反面解釋成,如果合約不能任意解除,那麼可能就會有反競爭的問題呢?有沒有其它的要件需要考量呢?會不會影響到基於台灣法、美國法或大陸法的授權談判或履約管理實務呢?如果只是一部分授權專利不侵權或無效呢?這些都值得持續觀察。


沒有留言:

張貼留言

注意:只有此網誌的成員可以留言。