【法宝引证码】CLI.C.1339475
[CLI Code] CLI.C. 1339475 (EN)
其他
垄断纠纷案例汇编 | 法宝双语案例
本期双语案例推送刘大华与湖南华源实业有限公司、东风汽车有限公司东风日产乘用车公司垄断纠纷上诉案等有关垄断纠纷类案例。
目录
Contents
1.刘大华与湖南华源实业有限公司、东风汽车有限公司东风日产乘用车公司垄断纠纷上诉案 Liu Dahua v. Hunan Huayuan Industrial Co., Ltd., Dongfeng Motor Co., Ltd., and Dongfeng Nissan Passenger Vehicle Co. (appeal of monopoly dispute) 2.华为公司诉IDC滥用市场地位垄断案（华为技术有限公司与IDC公司标准必要专利使用费纠纷上诉案） Huawei Technology Co., Ltd. v. Inter Digital Corporation (appeal over standard essential patent royalty fees) 3.吴小秦诉陕西广电网络传媒（集团）股份有限公司捆绑交易纠纷案 Wu Xiaoqin v. Shaanxi BC & TV Network (Group) Co., Ltd. (Case about dispute over bundled transaction)
一、刘大华与湖南华源实业有限公司、东风汽车有限公司东风日产乘用车公司垄断纠纷上诉案
【裁判要旨】
滥用市场支配地位是垄断行为的一种，所谓市场支配地位，是指经营者在相关市场内具有能够控制商品价格、数量或者其他交易条件的市场地位。因此，对于滥用市场支配地位纠纷，必须对“相关市场”进行界定，以判断经营者是否构成支配地位。对于“相关市场”的界定，应当从以下方面进行：（1）根据纠纷所涉及的商品，初步确定相关市场的范围；（2）在初步确定相关市场的范围后，应当根据行业和公众的一般看法，对该市场进行适度细分；（3）应当结合商品的可替代性，对于具有紧密可替代性的商品，应当归于同一市场中。在通过以上三个方面的分析后，最终确定“相关市场”的范围。
[Judgment Abstract]
Abusing a dominant market position is monopolistic behavior. The term “dominant market position” refers to a market position by which a business operator is able to control the price, quantity or other trade terms of a product in the relevant market. Therefore, in a dispute over abuse of a dominant market position, it is necessary to define the relevant market to determine whether a business operator has a dominant position. Defining the relevant market is to be undertaken by: (1) preliminarily determining the scope of the relevant market based on the products involved in the dispute; (2) after preliminarily determining the scope of the relevant market, appropriately subdivide the market based on the general views within the industry and by the public; and (3) incorporate the product’s interchangeability, with products that possess close interchangeability placed in the same market. After analyzing these three aspects, a final determination can be made on the scope of the “relevant market.”
Huawei Technology Co., Ltd. v. Inter Digital Corporation (appeal over standard essential patent royalty fees)
【裁判摘要】
当某项专利技术被作为技术标准采用后，这项专利就被称作“标准必要专利”。标准必要专利制度既要保证专利权人能够获得应有的回报，同时也避免专利权人索取高额许可费率或附加不合理条件。为此，标准化团体对标准必要专利的授权制定了相应规定。FRAND便是这类规定之一。根据FRAND原则要求，专利权人应当承诺以公平合理非歧视的条件进行授权，对于愿意支付合理使用费的善意的标准使用者，标准必要专利权人不得径直拒绝许可。因此，标准必要专利的使用人与专利权人就使用费无法达成一致的，为了避免专利权人滥用专利权，使用人可以向法院起诉要求确定使用费，法院应当确定合理的使用费并判令专利权人授权使用。
[Judgment Abstract]
If certain patent technology is generally adopted as a technical standard, the patent is called as “a standard essential patent”. The system of standard essential patent not only ensure the patent owner deserved return but also prevent the patent owner from demanding high royalty fees or unreasonable conditions. For this purpose, standardization groups developed corresponding provisions regarding standard essential patent license. FRAND is one of them. According to the FRAND principles, a patent owner shall undertake to grant authorization at a reasonable and non-discriminatory term, but may not reject goodwill users of the standard who would pay reasonable royalty fees. Therefore, where a user of the standard essential patent cannot reach agreement with the patent owner on royalty fees, to avoid the patent owner from abusing the patent rights, the user may sue in a court for confirmation of royalty fees, and the court shall determine a reasonable royalty and order the patent owner to authorize the use of the patent.
【法宝引证码】CLI.C.2449578
[CLI Code] CLI.C. 2449578 (EN)
三、吴小秦诉陕西广电网络传媒（集团）股份有限公司捆绑交易纠纷案
Wu Xiaoqin v. Shaanxi BC & TV Network (Group) Co., Ltd. (Case about dispute over bundled transaction)
【裁判要旨】
1.作为特定区域内唯一合法经营有线电视传输业务的经营者及电视节目集中播控者，在市场准入、市场份额、经营地位、经营规模等各要素上均具有优势，可以认定该经营者占有市场支配地位。
2.经营者利用市场支配地位，将数字电视基本收视维护费和数字电视付费节目费捆绑在一起向消费者收取，侵害了消费者的消费选择权，不利于其他服务提供者进入数字电视服务市场。经营者即使存在两项服务分别收费的例外情形，也不足以否认其构成反垄断法所禁止的搭售。
[Judgment Abstract]
1. As the only operator engaging in the legal business operation of cable TV transmission business and an entity engaging in the centralized broadcast control of TV programs in a specific area, it has advantages in market access, market share, operating status, operation scale, and other elements. It may be recognized that the operator has a dominant market position.
2. By making advantage of its dominant market position, the operator bundles the basic maintenance fee for receiving digital TV programs with the fee for paid digital TV programs and charges a consumer the fees together, which has infringed upon the consumer's right of choice and is prejudicial to other service providers accessing the digital TV service market. Even though the operator falls under exceptions where it separately charges the two service items, it is insufficient to deny that its acts constitute tie-in sale as prohibited by the Anti-Monopoly Law.
【法宝引证码】CLI.C.8917473
[CLI Code] CLI.C. 8917473 (EN)
北京北大英华
科技有限公司
PKULaw
Chinalawinfo
PKULaw
Chinalawinfo
PKULaw
Chinalawinfo
-END-
破产纠纷案例汇编 | 法宝双语案例著作权权属、侵权纠纷案例汇编 | 法宝双语案例商标权权属、侵权纠纷案例汇编 | 法宝双语案例保险纠纷案例汇编 | 法宝双语案例
机动车交通事故责任纠纷案例汇编 | 法宝双语案例
房屋租赁合同纠纷案例汇编 | 法宝双语案例房屋买卖合同纠纷案例汇编 | 法宝双语案例
质押合同类型案件汇编 | 法宝双语案例双语案例推送之质押合同类型案件汇编 | 法宝双语案例
关注下方公众号，获取更多法律信息