• 国家工商行政管理总局令第74号 关于禁止滥用知识产权排除、限制竞争行为的规定
  • 发布时间:2015年04月13日     信息来源:工商总局反垄断与反不正当竞争执法局

  《关于禁止滥用知识产权排除、限制竞争行为的规定》已经国家工商行政管理总局局务会议审议通过,现予公布,自2015年8月1日起施行。

                                                          局长   张茅

                                                          2015年4月7日

关于禁止滥用知识产权排除、限制竞争行为的规定

(2015年4月7日国家工商行政管理总局令第74号公布)

  第一条  为了保护市场公平竞争和激励创新,制止经营者滥用知识产权排除、限制竞争的行为,根据《中华人民共和国反垄断法》(以下简称《反垄断法》),制定本规定。

  第二条  反垄断与保护知识产权具有共同的目标,即促进竞争和创新,提高经济运行效率,维护消费者利益和社会公共利益。

  经营者依照有关知识产权的法律、行政法规规定行使知识产权的行为,不适用《反垄断法》;但是,经营者滥用知识产权,排除、限制竞争的行为,适用《反垄断法》。

  第三条  本规定所称滥用知识产权排除、限制竞争行为,是指经营者违反《反垄断法》的规定行使知识产权,实施垄断协议、滥用市场支配地位等垄断行为(价格垄断行为除外)。

  本规定所称相关市场,包括相关商品市场和相关地域市场,依据《反垄断法》和《国务院反垄断委员会关于相关市场界定的指南》进行界定,并考虑知识产权、创新等因素的影响。在涉及知识产权许可等反垄断执法工作中,相关商品市场可以是技术市场,也可以是含有特定知识产权的产品市场。相关技术市场是指由行使知识产权所涉及的技术和可以相互替代的同类技术之间相互竞争所构成的市场。

  第四条  经营者之间不得利用行使知识产权的方式达成《反垄断法》第十三条、第十四条所禁止的垄断协议。但是,经营者能够证明所达成的协议符合《反垄断法》第十五条规定的除外。

  第五条  经营者行使知识产权的行为有下列情形之一的,可以不被认定为《反垄断法》第十三条第一款第六项和第十四条第三项所禁止的垄断协议,但是有相反的证据证明该协议具有排除、限制竞争效果的除外:

  (一)具有竞争关系的经营者在受其行为影响的相关市场上的市场份额合计不超过百分之二十,或者在相关市场上存在至少四个可以以合理成本得到的其他独立控制的替代性技术;

  (二)经营者与交易相对人在相关市场上的市场份额均不超过百分之三十,或者在相关市场上存在至少两个可以以合理成本得到的其他独立控制的替代性技术。

  第六条  具有市场支配地位的经营者不得在行使知识产权的过程中滥用市场支配地位,排除、限制竞争。

  市场支配地位根据《反垄断法》第十八条和第十九条的规定进行认定和推定。经营者拥有知识产权可以构成认定其市场支配地位的因素之一,但不能仅根据经营者拥有知识产权推定其在相关市场上具有市场支配地位。

  第七条  具有市场支配地位的经营者没有正当理由,不得在其知识产权构成生产经营活动必需设施的情况下,拒绝许可其他经营者以合理条件使用该知识产权,排除、限制竞争。

  认定前款行为需要同时考虑下列因素:

  (一)该项知识产权在相关市场上不能被合理替代,为其他经营者参与相关市场的竞争所必需;

  (二)拒绝许可该知识产权将会导致相关市场上的竞争或者创新受到不利影响,损害消费者利益或者公共利益;

  (三)许可该知识产权对该经营者不会造成不合理的损害。

  第八条  具有市场支配地位的经营者没有正当理由,不得在行使知识产权的过程中,实施下列限定交易行为,排除、限制竞争:

  (一)限定交易相对人只能与其进行交易;

  (二)限定交易相对人只能与其指定的经营者进行交易。

  第九条  具有市场支配地位的经营者没有正当理由,不得在行使知识产权的过程中,实施同时符合下列条件的搭售行为,排除、限制竞争:

  (一)违背交易惯例、消费习惯等或者无视商品的功能,将不同商品强制捆绑销售或者组合销售; 

  (二)实施搭售行为使该经营者将其在搭售品市场的支配地位延伸到被搭售品市场,排除、限制了其他经营者在搭售品或者被搭售品市场上的竞争。

  第十条  具有市场支配地位的经营者没有正当理由,不得在行使知识产权的过程中,实施下列附加不合理限制条件的行为,排除、限制竞争:

  (一)要求交易相对人将其改进的技术进行独占性的回授;

  (二)禁止交易相对人对其知识产权的有效性提出质疑;

  (三)限制交易相对人在许可协议期限届满后,在不侵犯知识产权的情况下利用竞争性的商品或者技术;

  (四)对保护期已经届满或者被认定无效的知识产权继续行使权利;

  (五)禁止交易相对人与第三方进行交易;

  (六)对交易相对人附加其他不合理的限制条件。

  第十一条  具有市场支配地位的经营者没有正当理由,不得在行使知识产权的过程中,对条件相同的交易相对人实行差别待遇,排除、限制竞争。

  第十二条  经营者不得在行使知识产权的过程中,利用专利联营从事排除、限制竞争的行为。

  专利联营的成员不得利用专利联营交换产量、市场划分等有关竞争的敏感信息,达成《反垄断法》第十三条、第十四条所禁止的垄断协议。但是,经营者能够证明所达成的协议符合《反垄断法》第十五条规定的除外。

  具有市场支配地位的专利联营管理组织没有正当理由,不得利用专利联营实施下列滥用市场支配地位的行为,排除、限制竞争:

  (一)限制联营成员在联营之外作为独立许可人许可专利;

  (二)限制联营成员或者被许可人独立或者与第三方联合研发与联营专利相竞争的技术;

  (三)强迫被许可人将其改进或者研发的技术独占性地回授给专利联营管理组织或者联营成员;

  (四)禁止被许可人质疑联营专利的有效性;

  (五)对条件相同的联营成员或者同一相关市场的被许可人在交易条件上实行差别待遇;

  (六)国家工商行政管理总局认定的其他滥用市场支配地位行为。

  本规定所称专利联营,是指两个或者两个以上的专利权人通过某种形式将各自拥有的专利共同许可给第三方的协议安排。其形式可以是为此目的成立的专门合资公司,也可以是委托某一联营成员或者某独立的第三方进行管理。

  第十三条  经营者不得在行使知识产权的过程中,利用标准(含国家技术规范的强制性要求,下同)的制定和实施从事排除、限制竞争的行为。

  具有市场支配地位的经营者没有正当理由,不得在标准的制定和实施过程中实施下列排除、限制竞争行为:

  (一)在参与标准制定的过程中,故意不向标准制定组织披露其权利信息,或者明确放弃其权利,但是在某项标准涉及该专利后却对该标准的实施者主张其专利权。

  (二)在其专利成为标准必要专利后,违背公平、合理和无歧视原则,实施拒绝许可、搭售商品或者在交易时附加其他的不合理交易条件等排除、限制竞争的行为。

  本规定所称标准必要专利,是指实施该项标准所必不可少的专利。

  第十四条  经营者涉嫌滥用知识产权排除、限制竞争行为的,工商行政管理机关依据《反垄断法》和《工商行政管理机关查处垄断协议、滥用市场支配地位案件程序规定》进行调查。

  第十五条  分析认定经营者涉嫌滥用知识产权排除、限制竞争行为,可以采取以下步骤:

  (一)确定经营者行使知识产权行为的性质和表现形式;

  (二)确定行使知识产权的经营者之间相互关系的性质;

  (三)界定行使知识产权所涉及的相关市场;

  (四)认定行使知识产权的经营者的市场地位;

  (五)分析经营者行使知识产权的行为对相关市场竞争的影响。

  分析认定经营者之间关系的性质需要考虑行使知识产权行为本身的特点。在涉及知识产权许可的情况下,原本具有竞争关系的经营者之间在许可合同中是交易关系,而在许可人和被许可人都利用该知识产权生产产品的市场上则又是竞争关系。但是,如果当事人之间在订立许可协议时不是竞争关系,在协议订立之后才产生竞争关系的,则仍然不视为竞争者之间的协议,除非原协议发生实质性的变更。

  第十六条  分析认定经营者行使知识产权的行为对竞争的影响,应当考虑下列因素:

  (一)经营者与交易相对人的市场地位;

  (二)相关市场的市场集中度;

  (三)进入相关市场的难易程度;

  (四)产业惯例与产业的发展阶段;

  (五)在产量、区域、消费者等方面进行限制的时间和效力范围;

  (六)对促进创新和技术推广的影响;

  (七)经营者的创新能力和技术变化的速度;

  (八)与认定行使知识产权的行为对竞争影响有关的其他因素。

  第十七条  经营者滥用知识产权排除、限制竞争的行为构成垄断协议的,由工商行政管理机关责令停止违法行为,没收违法所得,并处上一年度销售额百分之一以上百分之十以下的罚款;尚未实施所达成的垄断协议的,可以处五十万元以下的罚款。

  经营者滥用知识产权排除、限制竞争的行为构成滥用市场支配地位的,由工商行政管理机关责令停止违法行为,没收违法所得,并处上一年度销售额百分之一以上百分之十以下的罚款。

  工商行政管理机关确定具体罚款数额时,应当考虑违法行为的性质、情节、程度、持续的时间等因素。

  第十八条  本规定由国家工商行政管理总局负责解释。

  第十九条  本规定自2015年8月1日起施行。

Order of the State Administration for Industry and Commerce
No.74

Provisions on the Prohibition of the Abuse of Intellectual Property Rights to Eliminate or Restrict Competition, as deliberated and adopted at the executive meeting of the State Administration for Industry and Commerce, is hereby promulgated , and shall become effective as of August 1,2015.

                                                        Minister: ZHANG Mao 
                                                        April 7,2015

Provisions on the Prohibition of the Abuse of Intellectual Property Rights to Eliminate or Restrict Competition
(Order of the State Administration for Industry and Commerce No. 74, promulgated on April 7th, 2015)

Article 1 The Provisions is enacted in accordance with the Antimonopoly Law of the People’s Republic of China (hereinafter referred to as the “Antimonopoly Law”) for the purposes of protecting fair market competition, stimulating innovation and prohibiting undertakings from abusing intellectual property rights to eliminate or restrict competition.

Article 2 Antimonopolyand intellectual property rights protection share common goals, namely to promote competition and innovation, to enhance economic efficiency, and to safeguard consumer andpublic interests.

The Antimonopoly Law does not apply where an undertaking exercises intellectual property rights pursuant to the laws and administrative regulations relating to intellectual property rights; however, the Antimonopoly Law shall apply if an undertaking abuses its intellectual property rights to eliminate or restrict competition.

Article 3 Abuse of intellectual property rights to eliminate or restrict competition in the Provisions refers to the exercises of intellectual property rights by an undertaking to engage in monopolistic conducts, such as monopoly agreements or abuse of a dominant market position, which are in violation of the Antimonopoly Law (except for price monopolistic conducts).

Relevant markets in the Provisions, including relevant product markets and relevant geographic markets, are defined according to the Antimonopoly Law and the Guidelines of the Antimonopoly Commission of the State Council on the Definition of Relevant Markets,with the impact of intellectual property rights, innovation and other factors taken into consideration.In relation to intellectual property licensing and other antimonopoly enforcement, a relevant product market may be a technology market or a goods market based on specific intellectual property rights. A relevant technology market is comprised of the technologies related to the exercise of a certain intellectual property right and substitutable technologies that compete with the former.

Article 4 An undertaking shall not enter into any monopoly agreement prohibited by Articles 13 and 14 of the Antimonopoly Law by means of exercising intellectual property rights, unless the undertaking can prove that the agreement is compatible with Article 15 of the Antimonopoly Law.

Article 5 Within any of the following circumstances where an undertaking exercises its intellectual property rights, the agreement may not be deemed as a monopoly agreement prohibited by Article 13.1.6 or Article 14.3 of the Antimonopoly Law, unless contrary evidence indicates that the agreement has the effect of eliminating or restricting competition:
(1) The combined market shares of competing undertakings in a relevant market affected by their conductsare no more than 20 percent, or there are at least four substitutable technologies that are independently controlled by other entities and obtainable at reasonable costs in the relevant market; or
(2) Neither of the shares of the undertakings and trading counterparts in the relevant marketexceed 30%, or there are at least two substitutable technologies that are independently controlled by other entities and obtainable at reasonable costs in the relevant market.

Article 6 An undertaking with a dominant market position shall not, in the course of exercising its intellectual property rights, abuse its dominant market position to eliminate or restrict competition.

The dominant market position shall be determined or presumed in accordance with Articles 18 or 19 of the Antimonopoly Law. An undertaking’s ownership of intellectual property rights may constitute one of the factors to determine its dominant market position; however, it cannot be presumed that an undertaking has a dominant market position in a relevant market solely based on that fact that it owns intellectual property rights.

Article 7 Without justifiable reasons, an undertaking with a dominant position shall not refuse to license its intellectual property rights on reasonable terms to other undertakings for the purpose of eliminating or restricting competition,provided that such intellectual property rights constitute an essential facility for productionor business operation.

In determining the conduct referred to in the above paragraph, the following factors shall also be taken into consideration:
(1) Such intellectual property rights cannot be reasonably substituted in the relevant market, and are indispensable for other undertakings to compete in the relevant market;
(2) Refusal to license such intellectual property rights will result in adverse effects on competition or innovation in the relevant market, and will impair consumer or public interests; and
(3) Licensing its intellectual property rights will not cause unreasonable harm to the dominant undertaking.

Article 8 Without justifiable reasons, an undertaking with a dominant market position shall not, in the course of exercising intellectual property rights, engage in any of the following trade restricting conducts to eliminate or restrict competition:
(1) Requiring a trading party to transact only with it, or
(2) Requiring a trading party to transact only with the undertakings it designates.

Article 9 Without justifiable reasons, an undertaking with a dominant market position shall not, in the course of exercising intellectual property rights, engage in tying practice to eliminate or restrict competition, provided that the following two conditions are also fulfilled:
(1) The dominant undertaking compulsorily bundles or packages different products for sales, in contravention of trading practices, consumption habits, or ignoring products’ functions; and
(2) The tying practice enables the dominant undertaking to leverage its dominant market position from the market for the tying product to the market for the tied product, with an effect of eliminating or restricting competition of other undertakings either in the market for the tying product or the market for the tied product.

Article 10 Without justifiable reasons, an undertaking with a dominant market position shall not, in the course of exercising intellectual property rights, impose any of the following unreasonable restrictive conditions, to eliminate or restrict competition:
(1) Requiring a trading party to exclusively grant back the technology that the trading party has improved,
(2) Prohibiting a trading party from challenging the validity of its intellectual property rights,
(3)Restricting a trading party from using competing products or competing technologies in a manner that would not infringe intellectual property rights after the licensing agreement has expired,
(4)Continuing exercising the rights to an intellectual property when its protection period has expired or it has been invalidated,
(5) Prohibiting a trading party from transacting with third parties, or
(6) Imposing other unreasonable restrictive conditions on a trading party.

Article 11 Without justifiable reasons, an undertaking with a dominant market position shall not, in the course of exercising intellectual property rights, apply differential treatment on the trading counterparts under equal conditions, to restrict or eliminate competition.

Article 12 An undertaking shall not, in the course of exercising intellectual property rights, use the patent pool to engage in conducts that eliminates or restricts competition.

Members of a patent pool shall not use the patent pool to exchange sensitive information in relation to competition, such as production quantity or market division, so as to reach any monopoly agreement prohibited by Articles 13 or 14 of the Antimonopoly Law, unless the undertaking(s) concerned can prove that the agreement can fulfill the requirements under Article 15 of the Antimonopoly Law.

Without justifiable reasons, a patent pool management organization with a dominant market position shall not use the patent pool to engage in any of the following conducts that abuse its market dominant position, to eliminate or restrict competition:
(1) Restricting members of the patent pool from licensing patents as independent licensors outside the pool,
(2) Restricting members of the patent pool or licensees from independently or jointly with third parties developing technologies that compete with the pooled patents,
(3) Forcing a licensee to exclusively grant back the technologies that the latter has improved or developed to the management organization of the patent pool or any member of the pool,
(4) Prohibiting licensees from challenging the validity of pooled patents,
(5)Applying differential treatment on the members of the patent pool or licensees in the same relevant market under equal conditions, or
(6) Other conduct abusing the dominant market position as determined by the State Administration for Industry and Commerce.

A patent pool in the Provisions refers to the contractual arrangement under which two or more patent holders jointly license their respective patents to third parties in certain forms. It can be in the form of establishing a special joint venture for this purpose, or entrusting the management to a member of the patent pool or to an independent third party.

Article 13 An undertaking shall not, in the course of exercising intellectual property rights, use the standards(including mandatory requirements contained within the state technical specifications, the same below) setting or implementing process to engage in any conducts that eliminates or restricts competition.

Without justifiable reasons, an undertaking with a dominant market position shall not, in the course of setting and implementing standards, engage in any of the following conducts that eliminate or restrict competition:
(1) When participating in the standard setting process, deliberately not disclosing information on its rights to the standard setting organization, or expressly waiving its rights, but asserting its patent rights against parties implementing such a standard after its patent has been included in the standard, or
(2) After its patent has become a standard essential patent, in violation of the fair, reasonable and non-discrimination principle, applying any conduct which eliminates or restricts competition, such as refusing to license, tying products or imposing other unreasonable trading conditions.

A standard essential patent in the Provisions refers to a patent that is indispensable for the implementation of the relevant standard.

Article 14 Where an undertaking is suspected of eliminating or restricting competition by abusing intellectual property rights, the Administration for Industry and Commerce shall carry out investigations in accordance with the Antimonopoly Law and the Procedural Provisions of the Administration for Industry and Commerce on the Prohibition of Monopoly Agreements and Abuse of a Dominant Market Position.

Article 15 In order to analyze and determine whether an undertaking’s conduct eliminates or restricts competition by abusing intellectual property rights, the following steps can be taken:
(1) Determining the nature and manner in which the intellectual property right has been exercised by the undertaking,
(2) Determining the nature of the relationship between the undertakings exercising their intellectual property rights,
(3) Defining the relevant market(s) for the exercise of intellectual property rights,
(4)Assessing the market position of the undertaking exercising its intellectual property rights, and
(5) Analyzing the effect of the undertaking’s exercise of intellectual property rights on competition in the relevant market.

When analyzing and determining the nature of the relations between the undertakings, the intrinsic characteristics in the implementation of the intellectual property rights should be taken into account. Given the licensing of the intellectual property rights, the competitive relations between the parties can be deemed as transactional relations under a licensing contract; however, in a market where products are produced based on the intellectual property rights, the licensors and licensees will thus become competitors. If the parties are not competitors at the time of entering into a licensing agreement but become competitors after the agreement, then such an agreement shall not be deemed as an agreement between competitors, unless the original agreement has been substantially altered.
Article 16 In order to analyze and determine the effects of the undertakings’ exercising intellectual property rights on competition, the following factors shall be taken into consideration:
(1) Market position of the undertaking and of the trading parties,
(2) Market concentration degree in the relevant market,
(3) Entry barriers in the relevant market,
(4) Industry practice and stage of industry development,
(5) Duration and scope of the effects of the restrictions in relation to output, territories, consumers, etc.
(6) Effects on the promotion of innovation and technology,
(7) Innovation capacity of the undertakings concerned and speed of technological change, and
(8) Other factors relevant to determining the effects of exercising intellectual property rights on competition.

Article 17 When an undertaking’s abuse of intellectual property rights to eliminate or restrict competition constitutes a monopoly agreement, the Administration for Industry and Commerce shall order the undertaking to cease the illegal conduct, confiscate illegal gains, and impose a fine between 1 per cent and 10 per cent of its turnover in the preceding year. In case that the monopoly agreement has not been implemented, a fine of no more than RMB 500,000 may be imposed.

When an undertaking’s abuse of intellectual property rights to eliminate or restrict competition constitutes an abuse of a dominant market position, the Administration for Industry and Commerce shall order the undertaking to cease the illegal conduct, confiscate illegal gains, and impose a fine between 1 per cent and 10 per cent of its turn over in the preceding year.

The Administration for Industry and Commerce shall, when determining the specific amount of the fine, consider the nature, circumstance, degree, duration and other factors of the illegal conduct.

Article 18 The State Administration for Industry and Commerceis responsible for the interpretation of the Provisions.

Article 19 The Provisions shall become effective as of August 1st 2015.

  • 相关文章