محدودیت‏های غیرقیمتی در قراردادهای پروانه بهره‏برداری از منظر حقوق رقابت (مطالعه تطبیقی در حقوق ایران، اتحادیه اروپا و ایالات‌متحده آمریکا)

دانشنامه حقوق اقتصادی

مقاله 3، دوره 22، شماره 8، دی 1394، صفحه 40-67   

نوع مقاله: علمی پژوهشی

شناسه دیجیتال (DOI): 10.22067/le.v22i8.47812

نویسندگان

سیما طوفانی اصل¹؛ رضا معبودی نیشابوری^{* 2}

¹دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی مشهد

²دانشگاه فردوسی مشهد

چکیده

قراردادهای لیسانس یکی از انواع قراردادهای انتقال فناوری محسوب می‏شوند که بر مبنای آن‌ها صاحب پروانه اختراع یا فناوری به‌عنوان اعطاکننده پروانه بهره‏برداری به گیرنده آن مجوز استفاده از پروانه خود را در مدت‌زمان و قلمرو معین اعطا می‏کند. با توجه به حقوق انحصاری که اعطاکننده پروانه بهره‏برداری درباره پروانه اختراع خود دارد، می‏تواند محدودیت‏هایی را بر گیرنده پروانه بهره‏برداری تحمیل کند که ممکن است مبتنی بر قیمت باشد و یا نباشد. انحصار مزبور با توجه به اهداف حقوق رقابت ازجمله تأمین رفاه مصرف‏کنندگان و یا ممانعت از انحصارطلبی در رقابت ممکن است چالشی را بین حقوق انحصاری اعطاکننده پروانه بهره‏برداری و حقوق رقابت ایجاد کند؛ بنابراین آنچه در این مقاله مورد بحث قرار گرفته، این است که آیا حقوق رقابت به تمام محدودیت‏های غیرقیمتی در قراردادهای پروانه بهره‏برداری از یک منظر نگاه می‏کند و آن‌ها را مخل رقابت تشخیص خواهد داد و یا برخی را نه‌تنها مانع رقابت ندانسته بلکه دارای فواید رقابتی تلقی می‏کند. برای پاسخ به سؤالات مزبور، مقاله پیش رو، به بررسی سه نظام حقوقی ایران، اتحادیه اروپا و ایالات‌متحده آمریکا به‌طور تطبیقی پرداخته است. مطالعه تطبیقی مزبور، نشان می‌دهد که مقررات ایران در این زمینه نیازمند به تغییرات و اصلاحاتی است تا بتواند موازنه متعادل‏تری بین حقوق رقابت و حقوق انتقال فناوری ایجاد نماید.

کلیدواژه‌ها

قرارداد لیسانس؛ پروانه اختراع؛ حقوق‌ رقابت؛ موقعیت مسلط؛ حقوق مالکیت فکری

مراجع

[1] Abdi pour, E. (2009). Abuse of Dominant Position. Journal of Islamic Law. 21(6): 125-156. (In Persian).

[2] Ahlborn, C; Evans, D. & Padilla, J. (2004). The Antitrust Economics of Tying: a Farewell to per se. Available at www.ssrn.com. (Last visited at 6/9/2015).

[3] American Bar Association. (2002). Antitrust Law Developments. (5th Ed), ABA Book Publishing.

[4] Anderman, S. (2007). Technology Transfer and the IP/Competition Interface. European Competition Law Annual. Portland. Hart Publishing.

[5] Aranda, L.M. (2005). Technology Licensing Agreements Comparative Study between the EU and the U. S. Master Thesis. Faculty of Law. University of Lund. Sweden.

[6] Baches Opi, S. (2000). The Approaches of the European Commission and the U. S Antitrust Agencies towards Exclusivity Clauses in Licensing Agreements. Boston College International and Comparative Law Review. 24(1):85-143.

[7] Bagheri, M.; Abbasi, S. (2012). Competition Law`s Policies & Intellectual Property Rights. Faculty of Law and Political Science Tehran University Journal. 42 (2): 59-74. (In Persian).

[8] Barazza, S. (2014). The Technology Transfer Block Exemption Regulation & related Guidelines: Competition Law & IP Licensing in the EU. Journal al of European Competition Law & Practice. 9(3):186-207.

[9] Bellis, F. (2014). IP and Competition: A Survey of Developments in the Past Year. Journal al of European Competition Law & Practice. 6(1):54-60.

[10] Christiansen, A.; Kerber, W. (2006). Competition policy with optimally Differentiated Rules Instead of “Per se Rules vs. Rule of Reason. Oxford University Press Publishing.

[11] Commission Regulation (EU) No 316/2014 on the application of Article 101(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union to categories of technology transfer agreements. Available at www. Eur-lex. Europa. Eu. (Last visited at 6/9/2015).

[12] Commission Regulation (EU) No 772/2004 on the Application of Article 101(3) of the Treaty to Categories of Technology Transfer Agreement. Available at www. Eur-lex. Europa. Eu. (Last visited at 6/9/2015).

[13] Communication from the Commission. Guidelines on the application of Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union to technology transfer agreements. (2014/C 89/03). Available at www. Eur-lex. Europa. Eu. (Last visited at 6/9/2015).

[14] Einer, E. (2009). Tying, Bundled Discounts, and the Death of the Single Monopoly Profit Theory. Harvard Law Review. Available at www. Law. Harvard. Edu/programs/olin_center/. (Last visited at 6/9/2015).

[15] European Commission, (2002), Glossary of Terms Used in EU Competition Policy- Antitrust & Control of Concentrations. Luxembourg. Official Publications of the European Communities.

[16] Fine, F. (2006). The EC Competition Law on Technology Licensing. Sweet & Maxwell publishing.

[17] Ghaffari Farsani, B. (2014).Competition law & Its Civil Remedies. (First Ed) .Tehran. Mizan Legal Foundation. (In Persian).

[18] Gülfem Bozdag, G. (2014). Technology Transfer Block Exemption Regulation (240/96) and Guidelines in Terms of Hard core and Excluded Restrictions. Gazi University Faculty of Law journal.18:79-90.

[19] Han, J. (2005).Study on Intellectual Property Licensing under Antimonopoly Law in the U. S., Europe, Japan and Korea. Available at www. iip. or. jp/e/e_summary/pdf/detail2004/e16_14. pdf. (Last visited at 6/9/2015).

[20] Hull, D. & Toro, A. (2004). Reform of the technology licensing rules. The European Antitrust Review. Available at https://www.cov.com/-/media/files/corporate/.../oid32193.pdf. (Last visited at 6/9/2015).

[21] Johansson, Camilla. (2005). Licensing in the perspective of EC Competition Law. Master thesis. School of Economics and Commercial Law. Goteborg University. Department of Law.

[22] Kjøelbye, L & Peeperkorn, L. (2007). the New Technology Transfer Block Exemption Regulation and Guidelines. European Competition Law Annual: 2005. Portland. Hart Publishing.

[23] Korah LLM, V. (2006). Intellectual Property Rights and the EC Competition Rules. Oregon.Hart Publishing.

[24] Kutty, A. Chakravarty, S. (2011). The Competition-IP: Emerging Challenges in Technology Transfer Licenses. Journal of Intellectual property Rights.16: 258-266.

[25] Law on Amendment of the Law of the Fourth Economic, Social & Cultural Islamic Republic of Iran and the Implementation of General Policies Principle Constitution Law. Approved by the Expediency Council (1/6/2008). (In Persian).

[26] Lugard, P. (2014). The New EU Technology Transfer Regime like a Rolling Stone?. Digiworld Economic Journal. Available at www.ssrn.com/abstract=2603717. (Last visited at 6/9/2015).

[27] Melamed, D & Lerch, D. (2007). Uncertain Patents, Antitrust, and Patent Pools. European Competition Law Annual: 2005. Portland.Hart Publishing.

[28] Miller. R.S. (2003). Antitrust Pitfalls in Intellectual Property Licensing. Available at www. Law. Berkeley. Edu. (Last visited at 6/9/2015).

[29] Nguyen, T. T. (2010). Competition Law, Technology Transfer and the TRIPS Agreement Implications for Developing Countries. UK.Edward Elgar Publishing.

[30] Rab, S. (2014). New EU Technology Transfer Block Exemption: A Note of Caution. Journal of European Competition Law & Practice. 5(7): 436-450.

[31] Rättzen, M. (2013). The Enforceability of Non-compete Clauses in Patent License Agreements in the EU and the U. S. Essay. Master of Laws programed. Faculty of Law. Lund University.

[32] Ritter, L & Brawn, D. (2004). European Competition Law a Practitioner`s Guide. Kluwer law International Publishing.

[33] Saberi, R. (2008). Licensing Agreements. (First Ed). Tehran. The SD institute of law research & study. (In Persian).

[34] Sadeghi, M.; Mahmoudi, A. (2007). Interaction and Co-Operation License Agreements, Intellectual Property Rights & Competition Law. Iranian Journal of Trade Studies (IJTS).43:249-282. (In Persian).

[35] Sherman Antitrust Act 1890.

[36] The Treaty on the Functioning Of the European Union. (26. 10. 2010). Official Journal of the European Union. Available at www. Eur-lex. Europa. Eu. (Last visited at 6/9/2015).

[37] U. S. DEP’T OF JUSTICE& FED. TRADE COMM’N, (2007). Antitrust enforcement and Intellectual Property Rights: Promoting Innovation and Competition.

[38] U. S. DEP’T OF JUSTICE& FED. TRADE COMM’N. (1995). Antitrust Guidelines for the Licensing of Intellectual Property.

[39] Warren, M & Zafar, O. (2014). Technology Licensing and Settlements of IP Disputes: Implications of the European Commission’s New Regime. Journal of European Competition Law & Practice. 5(6): 364-367.