在欧洲联盟法院华为诉中兴通信案判决后所做成的判例
gb jp cn

回到4iP Council主页

Case law search


Updated 19 十月 2020

大陆集团诉诺基亚

慕尼黑高级地区法院
12 十二月 2019 - Case No. 6 U 5042/19

A. 事实

诺基亚(Nokia)持有多项被宣告为实施3G和4G无线通信技术标准时必要的专利(以下称“标准必要专利 ”或“SEPs“)。戴姆勒(Daimler)是全球最大的汽车制造商之一。总部位于德国的跨国公司集团——大陆集团(Continental)——则是戴姆勒的供应商。

诺基亚于2019年3月就其所持有的几项德国标准必要专利分别在德国慕尼黑、杜塞尔多夫、以及曼海姆地区法院对戴姆勒公司提起了十项专利侵权诉讼(以下称“德国侵权诉讼“)。 其后,大陆集团旗下的两家公司——德国子公司Continental Automotive GmbH以及匈牙利子公司Continental Automotive Hungary Kft.——在戴姆勒向其发出第三方通知之后,以诉讼参加人的身份 加入了德国侵权诉讼的诉讼程序。

大陆集团在美国的另一子公司——大陆汽车系统股份有限公司(以下称“美国大陆公司“)于2019年5月10日在美国加利福尼亚北区地区法院( 以下称”美国法院“)对诺基亚及其他数个公司提起了诉讼,指控诺基亚违反反垄断法。

美国大陆公司并于2019年6月12日向法院提起了禁诉令动议,要求美国法院禁止诺基亚在德国进行侵权诉讼程序(以下称“美国禁诉令动议“)。美国法院给予诺基亚机会在2019年7月24日的最后期限截止之前对禁诉令动议作出回应。

诺基亚于2019年7月9日向慕尼黑地区法院(以下称“地区法院“)提起了一项要求核发临时禁令的动议。诺基亚要求地区法院判令美国大陆公司撤回其在美国所提起的禁诉令动议,并禁止其未来再度申请禁诉令或其他相类似的措施。

此外,诺基亚还要求法院对大陆集团的德国母公司(以下称”德国大陆公司“)发出命令,要求其确保美国大陆公司撤回于美国提起的禁诉令动议以及其他几项主张的执行。 地区法院于2019年7月11日核准了诺基亚要求对美国大陆公司核发临时禁令的主张 [1]

地区法院并于2019年7月30日向德国大陆公司发出了禁令,判令德国大陆公司必须确保其子公司将会撤回于美国提起的禁诉令动议 [2] 。德国大陆公司对此决定提起上诉。

美国大陆公司于2019年9月3日撤回了其在美国提起的禁诉令动议。然而,美国大陆公司再度于2019年10月8日在美国法院提起了对诺基亚核发临时禁止令(TRO)的动议,要求法院禁止诺基亚在德国境内对大陆集团旗下各公司以及其客户主张专利权。这项动议遭到法院拒绝。

慕尼黑高级地区法院(以下称”上诉法院“)在其于2019年12月12日做成的当前判决中 [3] (引自https://www.gesetze-bayern.de/Content/Document/Y-300-Z-BECKRS-B-2019-N-33196?hl=true&AspxAutoDetectCookieSupport= 1)驳回了德国大陆公司的上诉,并维持了地区法院于2019年7月30日所核发的禁令。


B. 法院的论理

上诉法院认为,诺基亚有权要求对德国大陆公司核发禁令,以防止后者对其财产权的直接非法侵害威胁。

根据德国法律,美国法院所授予的禁诉令或临时禁止令(TRO)将会构成对诺基亚财产权的非法侵害——诺基亚对戴姆勒行使其因持有专利而产生的排他性权利将会在未决的德国侵权诉讼程序中被剥夺 [4]

尽管美国大陆公司于此同时已经撤回了其于美国所提起的禁诉令动议,但因采取此类措施而对诺基亚财产权产生的威胁仍然迫在眉睫。上诉法院认为,美国大陆公司对诺基亚提起新的临时禁止令(TRO)动议的行为即可以表明其尚未放弃采取该项策略 [5]

此两项动议均是由美国大陆公司而非德国大陆公司所提起的这一事实并不能排除禁令仍然可以针对后者核发 [6] 。上诉法院赞同了地区法院的观点,认为德国大陆公司应该被视为其美国子公司提起动议行为的“共同实施人”,因其无法提供任何证据来反驳诺基亚在诉讼中提出有关美国大陆公司所采取的行为是在其德国母公司知情/同意的情况下而为之的主张 [7]

此外,上诉法院更明确指出,地区法院于一审判决中所核发的“反禁诉令”是符合法律上要求的 [8] 。德国大陆公司的主张基本上在于其认为地区法院的禁令不应在德国境内核发,因为此一禁令与美国法院的禁诉令具有相同的效果,即为剥夺美国大陆公司在美国法院诉讼程序中主张其权利的机会。

于此范围内,上诉法院与地区法院并不同意此项观点,并裁定德国法院所核发的禁诉令是合法的,因其仅仅涉及美国大陆公司所提起的一项辅助性动议(即禁诉令动议),对美国大陆公司在美国对诺基亚提起的主要诉讼程序没有任何影响 [9] 。上诉法院裁定认为,在通常情况下并没有理由阻止诉讼中的一方通过法院命令的方式来从事只是辅助性动议的行为 [9]

上诉法院还认为,德国法院所核发的反禁诉令是合法的,因为正如诺基亚所主张的那样,德国法院所核发的反禁诉令是对抗美国法院的禁诉令“唯一有效的抗辩护手段” [10] 。此外,在本案中,认可诺基亚捍卫自己免受非法法律手段侵害的利益凌驾于美国大陆公司享有行为自由的利益之上是有理由的 [11]

此外,诺基亚原则上可以与参在美国进行的禁诉令诉讼程序这一事实并不意味着诺基亚就不能够在德国取得反禁诉令。上诉法院认为原因在于禁诉令的核发对诺基亚继续进行其在德国侵权诉讼程序的权利可能产生的影响并不会是美国法院在决定是否核准美国大陆公司所提起的禁诉令动议时所考虑的因素 [12] 。诺基亚因此将无法在于美国法院提起的诉讼程序中充分捍卫其权利。

有关美国法院所核发的禁诉令在德国很可能无法执行此一事实同样与本案无关 [13] 。上诉法院指出,诺基亚因为不能遵守禁诉令而将需要在美国支付的罚款实际上将迫使诺基亚停止在德国侵权诉讼中主张其专利权 [14]

另外,上诉法院认为,德国地区法院所核发的“反禁诉令”并未违反国际法,因其对美国法院的管辖权并没有造成任何直接影响,因此也没有对美国的主权产生挑战 [15]

最后,上诉法院强调到,地区法院的裁决亦未违反欧盟法律。事实上欧盟法律于此甚至都没有其适用,因为本案所涉及的只是德国专利权遭到本国国内实体侵权的情 况 [16]

  • [1] Nokia v Continental, District Court of Munich, Order dated 11 July 2019, Case-No. 21 O 3999/19。
  • [2] Nokia v Continental, District Court of Munich, Order dated 30 July 2019, Case-No. 21 O 9512/19。
  • [3] Nokia v Continental, Higher District Court of Munich, decision dated 12 December 2019, Case-No. 6 U 5042/19。
  • [4] 同上注, 段 55。
  • [5] 同上注, 段 56。
  • [6] 同上注, 段 76 及以下。
  • [7] 同上注, 段 81 及以下。
  • [8] 同上注, 段 58 及以下。
  • [9] 同上注, 段 59 及以下。
  • [10] 同上注, 段 69 及段72。
  • [11] 同上注, 段 69。
  • [12]  同上注, 段 70。
  • [13] 同上注, 段 70。
  • [14] 同上注, 段 71。
  • [15] 同上注, 段 73。
  • [16] 同上注, 段 74。

Updated 1 四月 2021

InterDigital v Xiaomi, District Court (Landgericht) Munich I

慕尼黑地区法院
25 二月 2021 - Case No. 7 O 14276/20

A. Facts

The claimants are two US-based companies that are part of InterDigital Group (InterDigital). InterDigital Group holds a portfolio of patents declared as (potentially) essential, to various wireless telecommunications standards (standard essential patents, or SEPs) developed by the European Telecommunications Standards Institute (ETSI). The claimants hold German SEPs which are subject to a commitment to be made accessible to standard users on fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory (FRAND) terms and conditions, in accordance with the ETSI IPR Policy.

The defendants are four companies belonging to the Xiaomi group that has its headquarters in China (Xiaomi). Xiaomi produces and sells -among other products- smartphones that comply with ETSI standards worldwide.

On 9 June 2020, Xiaomi filed an action against InterDigital before the Intermediate People’s Court in Wuhan, China (Wuhan Court). In its complaint, Xiaomi asked the Wuhan Court to determine specific rates or a range of rates for the licensing of InterDigital’s worldwide 3G/UMTS and 4G/LTE SEP portfolio (Chinese main proceedings). On 28 July 2020, Xiaomi, for the first time, informed InterDigital by telephone that it had filed a case in China. However, the Xiaomi representative did not provide any details regarding the filing.

On the 29 July 2020, InterDigital filed an infringement action against Xiaomi before the High Court of Delhi, India (Delhi Court) with a request for injunctive relief (Indian proceedings). In addition, InterDigital requested a preliminary cease-and-desist order against Xiaomi.

On 4 August 2020, Xiaomi, applied for an anti-suit injunction (ASI) before the Wuhan Court.

On 23 September 2020, the Wuhan Court issued its ASI order, ordering InterDigital to withdraw or suspend the actions in the pending Indian proceedings (Wuhan ASI). InterDigital was also ordered to refrain from filing infringement actions on its 3G and 4G SEPs for (1) permanent and/or temporary injunctions or (2) FRAND rate determinations against Xiaomi in any country of the world during the pendency of the Chinese main proceedings. The Wuhan Court ordered a fine amounting to RMB 1,000,000 per day in case of violation of the above order. InterDigital was advised of the issued ASI for the first time when the Wuhan court sent an email to several InterDigital email addresses on 25 September 2020.

On 29 September 2020, InterDigital filed an action for an anti-anti-suit injunction (AASI) before the Delhi Court. On 9 October 2020, the Delhi Court issued an AASI, restraining Xiaomi from enforcing the Wuhan ASI (Delhi AASI).

On 30 October 2020, InterDigital filed a motion for an AASI before the District Court of Munich I (Munich District Court or Court) as well.

On 9 November 2020, the Munich District Court issued an AASI ordering Xiaomi to refrain from pursuing the Wuhan ASI or take further (court and/or administrative) measures against InterDigital, intended to directly or indirectly prevent InterDigital from prosecuting infringement proceedings based on its SEPs in Germany (Munich AASI). Each violation of the Munich AASI order triggers a fine amounting up to EUR 250,000 or detention up to six months.

On 22 December 2020, Xiaomi filed an appeal of the Munich AASI and also requested a stay of the enforcement of this order. On 24 January 2021, the Munich District Court rejected the request for a stay of the enforcement of the AASI.

With the present judgment dated 25 February 2021, the Munich District Court dismissed Xiaomi’s appeal on the merits and confirmed the Munich AASI. [17] (cited by www.gesetze-bayern.de/Content/Document/Y-300-Z-BECKRS-B-2021-N-3995?hl=true)
 

B. Court’s reasoning

The Munich District Court held that InterDigital had a claim for preliminary injunction and that sufficient grounds for issuing an AASI were given. [18]
 

Claim for preliminary injunction

The Court explained that the filing, prosecution and enforcement of an ASI in China with the goal to prevent the assertion of claims for injunctive relief against patent infringement in Germany impairs the ‘property-like legal position’ of the patent holder and constitutes a tortious act (in terms of Section 823 para. 1 of the German Civil Code). [19] The same is true with respect to court orders, which restrain a party from initiating AASI-proceedings in Germany (so-called ‘anti-anti-anti-suit injunctions’, or AAASI). [19]

In the eyes of the Munich District Court, the Wuhan ASI had the aforementioned effect. According to its wording and reasoning, the Wuhan ASI attempted to have a global reach and would also have impacted those InterDigital Group entities holding German SEPs that were involved in the present proceedings. [20] The fact that these companies did not directly face fines or other sanctions imposed by the Wuhan Court, did not change the fact that the Wuhan ASI tried to impair their legal position: These measures threatened other affiliated companies within InterDigital Group and, thus, created a coercive situation in an attempt to limit the freedom of the companies that actually hold German SEPs to act for their protection of their rights. [20]

In addition, the Court expressed the view that InterDigital was in a position to invoke the right for self-defence against the Wuhan ASI. [19] Section 227 of the German Civil Code provides that any action, which is necessary for averting a present illicit attack, is not unlawful.

 

Grounds for preliminary injunction

Furthermore, the Munich District Court found that there was sufficient justification for ordering interim measures. [21]

First, it could not be requested from InterDigital to defend itself against the Wuhan ASI in regular (main) court proceedings. [22] Given that injunctions are available only for the limited lifetime of a patent, regular proceedings against an ASI would not sufficiently protect patent holders’ rights; the latter would be, effectively, deprived of the right to injunctive relief for a considerable period of time, at least until the enforcement of the first instance decision of the German court. [23] This limitation would occur irrespective of the fact that a foreign ASI violates public order (ordre public) and, thus, does not have any legal effect in Germany. [22] The Court repeated that sanctions imposed or threatened in foreign jurisdictions can place the patent holder under pressure and stand in the way of effective patent enforcement in Germany. [22] This applies equally, when a foreign court has granted an AAASI, preventing a party to seek for protective measures in the form of a AASI in Germany, as was the case with the order of the Wuhan Court. [24]

Second, the Munich District Court held that the urgency required for interim measures was given. [25] Inter-digital had filed the request for an AASI in a timely fashion. [26] As a rule, Munich courts require that requests for preliminary injunctions concerning patents must be filed within a deadline of one-month of knowledge of the act. [27] The Munich District Court suggested that this deadline, basically, also applies to AASIs (refraining, however, from a final assessment of this question). [28]

In case that an AASI is directed against an ASI already granted by a foreign court (risk of repetition), the respective request should be filed within a month after the patent holder obtained ‘secure knowledge’ of the foreign court order, irrespective of whether formal service took place or not. [29] For assuming ‘secure knowledge’, it can be required that the patent holder gets access to the ASI request as well as the evidence used in the foreign proceedings, especially when the court order itself does not contain clear information about the parties, the content and the legal grounds of the order. [30]

If a request for an AASI is filed before a foreign ASI has been issued, that is when only a ‘risk of first infringement’ of a violation of SEP holder’s ‘property-like’ rights exists, the one-month deadline begins at the moment in time, in which the patent holder gains ‘secure knowledge’ of the filing of an ASI request before the foreign court or of the existing risk of such measures, which is especially materialized, when the implementer threatens with respective action. [31] In this context, the Court clarified that filing early countermeasures before a grant of an ASI is only an option; patent holders are, basically, free to wait for the outcome of foreign ASI proceedings, before filing a request for an AASI. [31]

Having said that, the Munich District Court outlined that it will, as a rule, assume that a required risk of a first infringement’, which could result in an AASI, is present, if the one of the following circumstances occur:

  • The implementer has threatened to file a request for an ASI;
  • The implementer has filed a request for an ASI;
  • The implementer has filed a (regular) action for the grant of a licence or the determination of reason-able global licensing rates in a jurisdiction, in which ASIs can, in principle, be granted;
  • The implementer has already threatened an ASI or filed a respective request against other patent holders and the party filing an AASI in Germany has no indication that the implementer will refrain from such actions against it in the future;
  • The implementer failed to declare in text form within a short deadline set by the patent holder (e.g. with the first notification of infringement) that it will not file a request for an ASI. [32]
ASI and implementer’s willingness to obtain a licence

The Munich District Court further made clear that an implementer who threatens an ASI or files a respective request, can, as a rule, not be treated as a ‘willing licensee’ within the meaning of the Huawei v ZTE ruling (Huawei v ZTE) [33] of the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU) and the recent case-law of the German Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof) in the Sisvel v Haier [34] cases. [35] According to the Court, an implementer truly willing to obtain a FRAND-licence would regularly refrain from actions impairing SEP holder’s ‘property-like’ rights even further than the past and ongoing acts of patent infringement (such as the filing of a request for an ASI). [36]

Looking particularly at the negotiation framework established in Huawei v ZTE, the Munich District Court noted that balanced negotiations on an equal footing -as envisioned by the CJEU- can only be ensured if the parties have equal access to legal remedies: The implementer’s ability to attack patent validity should be counterbalanced by the patent holder’s ability to assert its patent rights before court. [37] This is no longer the case when the judicial assertion of claims against patent infringement is precluded based on an ASI. [37] In this context, the Court noted that an ASI directly violates the SEP holders’ right to have access to courts which is established in both European law (Article 47 para. 1 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights) and German constitutional law. [37]

Furthermore, the Munich District Court expressed the view that an implementer who has been notified about the infringement of SEPs can be required not only to adequately demonstrate willingness to obtain a FRAND-licence, but also to declare that it will not file a request for an ASI against the patent holder. [36] The Court explained that, otherwise, the negotiation process set forth by Huawei v ZTE could not be followed. [38] In particular, the SEP holder could no longer be obliged to notify the implementer about the infringement before filing a court action. [38] By making a notification of infringement, the patent holder exposes itself to an ASI. If an ASI is granted, then the patent holder will in many cases be de facto prevented from exercising its right to injunctive relief even towards implementers unwilling to take a licence. [39] According to the Court, this result conflicts with the so-called EU IPR Enforcement-Directive (Articles 9-11) [40] as well as the case law of the CJEU. [41]

The Court also added that SEP holders cannot be expected to pre-emptively prepare countermeasures against potential future ASIs [36] . Even when SEP holders seek global portfolio licences, preparing the filing of AASIs in many different jurisdictions would lead to disproportionate high costs at a point in time, in which neither the risk nor the impact of an ASI could be reliably assessed. [36]
 

Balance of interests

After weighing the interests of the parties against each other, the Munich District Court held that an AASI was justified. [42]

On the one hand, the Court recognized that InterDigital had an interest to be granted the requested AASI. Although the Wuhan ASI violated public order and could not be enforced in Germany, InterDigital had an interest to limit the reach of the Chinese order as far as German SEPs are concerned; otherwise, the threat of sanctions that could be imposed in China would de facto prevent InterDigital from enforcing its patent rights in Germany for an unforeseeable period of time. [43]

On the other hand, the Court highlighted that a German AASI would not impair the rights of Xiaomi. [44] The AASI would only oblige Xiaomi to withdraw the Wuhan ASI and, therefore, have no impact on the Chinese main proceedings. [44] The Chinese main proceedings would also not be impaired, in case that InterDigital filed infringement proceedings against Xiaomi in Germany, following the grant of an AASI. The Munich District Court expects that German infringement proceedings would not revolve around the same question raised in the Chinese proceedings, that is the determination of the global rate for InterDigital’s SEP portfolio. [44] On the contrary, German infringement courts would probably not examine the amount of an adequate global licensing rate, because it is very unlikely that they would examine a FRAND defence raised by Xiaomi on the merits. [44] The Court reasoned that the very act of requesting an ASI, or threatening to do so, is evidence that the implementer is an unwilling licensee, such that a FRAND defence raised by Xiaomi in German infringement proceedings would hardly have any prospects of success. [44]

In addition, the Court took the view that Xiaomi’s interest to avoid infringement trials in Germany during the pendency of the Chinese main proceedings was not worthy of protection. [45] Xiaomi did neither constantly monitor the IPR landscape, as it is obliged to, nor obtain necessary licences before starting production. [45] What is more, Xiaomi refused to do so for more than seven years, such that InterDigital can no longer be expected to further wait to assert its rights. [45]

 

C. Other issues

The Munich District Court also confirmed that InterDigital had a legitimate interest in legal remedies. [46] Under German law, this is a prerequisite for any court action and is, basically, given, when the claims asserted by the claimant have not been fulfilled by the defendant yet. [47] The fact that InterDigital could defend itself against the ASI also in so-called ‘reconsideration proceedings’ before Chinese courts did not remove InterDigital’s legitimate interest that its case is heard by German courts. [48] The Court held that such proceedings could not sufficiently protect InterDigital’s ‘property-like’ rights in Germany, especially since a reliable assessment of the prospects of success of such legal remedy is very challenging. [48]

Furthermore, the Court confirmed that the pendency of the Chinese and Indian proceedings did not prevent German courts from hearing the case in question (no lis pendens). [49]

Finally, the Court also found that the Munich AASI had been served to Xiaomi within the relevant deadline, which under German law is a prerequisite for such orders to remain in force. [50]

  • [17] InterDigital v Xiaomi, District Court (Landgericht) Munich I, judgment dated 25 February 2021, Case-No. 7 O 14276/20.
  • [18] Ibid, para. 75.
  • [19] Ibid, para. 120.
  • [20] Ibid, para. 121.
  • [21] Ibid, para. 129.
  • [22] Ibid, para. 130.
  • [23] Ibid, para. 130. The Munich District Court highlighted that the right to injunctive relief is the ‘essential feature’ of exclusionary rights, such as patent rights, and the ‘sharpest weapon’ against infringement. Patents would be ‘worthless’, if the patent holder would be denied the possibility to enforce its rights by way of court proceedings.
  • [24] Ibid, para. 131.
  • [25] Ibid, para. 132.
  • [26] Ibid, para. 132 as well as paras. 151 et seqq.
  • [27] Ibid, para. 133.
  • [28] Ibid, paras. 134-135.
  • [29] Ibid, para. 134.
  • [30] Ibid. para. 136.
  • [31] Ibid, para. 138.
  • [32] Ibid, para. 142.
  • [33] Huawei v ZTE, Court of Justice of the EU, judgment dated 16 July 2015, Case No. C-170/13.
  • [34] Sisvel v Haier I, Bundesgerichtshof, judgment dated 5 May 2020, Case No. KZR 36/17 and Sisvel v Haier II, Bundesgerichtshof, judgment dated 24 November 2020, Case No. KZR 35/17.
  • [35] InterDigital v Xiaomi, District Court (Landgericht) Munich I, judgment dated 25 February 2021, Case-No. 7 O 14276/20, para. 146.
  • [36] Ibid, para. 146.
  • [37] Ibid. para. 148.
  • [38] Ibid, para. 147.
  • [39] Ibid, para. 149.
  • [40] Directive 2004/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the enforcement of intellectual property rights (OJ L 157, 30.4.2004).
  • [41] InterDigital v Xiaomi, District Court (Landgericht) Munich I, judgment dated 25 February 2021, Case-No. 7 O 14276/20, para. 149.
  • [42] Ibid, para. 168.
  • [43] Ibid, para. 169.
  • [44] Ibid, para. 170.
  • [45] Ibid, para. 173.
  • [46] Ibid, para. 75.
  • [47] Ibid, para. 107.
  • [48] Ibid, para. 108.
  • [49] Ibid, paras. 75 and 109.
  • [50] Ibid, para. 75 and paras. 80-106.

Updated 13 四月 2020

IPCom诉联想

法国法院判决
3 三月 2020 - Case No. 14/2020

A. 事实

IPCom GmbH&Co. KG(以下称“IPCom”)于2007年从Robert Bosch GmbH(以下称“博世”)收购了内含160多个符合2G、3G和4G标准的专利族的专利组合 [51] 。其中一项是编号EP 1 841 268 B2(以下称“EP 268”),对于实施3G标准而言具备标准必要性的专利 [52]

IPCom就其所持有的具备或者将来可能具备标准必要性的专利向欧洲电信标准协会(ETSI)做出了FRAND承诺(“FRAND“此一术语代表”公平、合理和无歧视“) [53]

IPCom在2018年9月时向联想提出了许可要约 [52] 。其后,于2019年3月1日时,IPCom向联想发出了一项正式通知,并要求联想在2019年3月15日之前就其所提出的许可协议要约作出回复 [54] 。 IPCom同时指出,若是联想未能在截止日期之前作出答复,IPCom将提起法律诉讼程序以捍卫其权利 [55]

有鉴于IPCom所提出的许可费率以及该专利组合中同时包含了已经到期或即将到期的专利的这一事实,联想认为IPCom所提出的许可协议要约不符合FRAND,联想集团在美国的子公司——Lenovo Inc.于是与Motorola Mobility LLC(以下称“摩托罗拉“)联合,于2019年3月14日在加利福尼亚北部地区地方法院(以下称”美国地区法院“)对IPCom提起诉讼 [56] 。二者主张IPCom违反了其对欧洲电信标准协会做出的将按照FRAND条款对联想进行许可的承诺,并要求美国地区法院就IPCom所持有的专利组合适用于全球范围的FRAND许可条款进行判定 [52]

IPCom于2019年7月2日在伦敦高等法院对二集团旗下的英国子公司——Lenovo Technology(UK)Limited以及Motorola Mobility UK Ltd.提起了侵权诉讼。除非双方能够于目前仍在进行中的美国诉讼案过程中达成许可协议,否则IPCom要求法院对涉案侵权产品核发禁令 [57]

二集团的美国子公司——Lenovo Inc.和Motorola Mobility LLC接着在2019年9月18日向美国地区法院提起了禁诉令动议,要求在美国法院就何种条款与条件才符合FRAND此一问题尚未作出裁决以前,禁止IPCom继续进行其于英国法院提起的未决侵权诉讼或者对联想集团旗下的任何主体提起新的侵权诉讼,并且禁止其向其他外国法院提起反禁诉令诉讼程序 [58]

IPCom在2019年10月25日及28日于巴黎法院对该集团的法国子公司——Lenovo (France) SAS以及Motorola Mobility France SAS进行传唤 [59]

IPCom的目的是撤销对方在美国法院提起的禁诉令动议,并禁止Motorola Mobility LLC和Lenovo Inc.提起任何阻止IPCom行使其权利的诉讼 [52]

IPCom也在英国向该公司提起同类型的诉讼 [60]

IPCom同时也在于巴黎法院进行的诉讼程序中传唤了Lenovo (France) SAS、Motorola Mobility France SAS、Modelabs Mobile Limited、以及Digital River Ireland Ltd.这几家公司,寻求针对这些公司的暂时性禁令救济 [52]

巴黎法院于2019年11月8日裁定并没有理由需要将该案件移交到美国地区法院进行审理 [61] 。巴黎法院判令,Lenovo Inc.和Motorola Mobility LLC必须立即且最迟不得晚于2019年11月14日,针对其所提起的侵权诉讼程序中涉及EP 268中的法国专利部分,以及任何由联想集团内的各个主体,包括其批发商、分销商、客户以及任何中介机构,于法国领土范围内所为的任何事实行为中与侵权诉讼程序相关的部分,就此限度范围内撤回其于美国提起的禁诉令请求 [62] 。巴黎法院还禁止了Lenovo Inc.以及Motorola Mobility LLC在其他外国管辖区内就同一目的提起任何新的诉讼 [52] 。此决定的作成并附带有罚则,Lenovo Inc.以及Motorola Mobility LLC每一次的违规行为以及每一天未履行本判决都将被处以200,000欧元的罚款 [52]

同一天,伦敦高等法院也做出了裁定,认为禁止IPCom就EP 268的侵权性与有效性进行辩护是一种无理且不公正的做法,并且判令联想集团的英国主体不得妨碍于英国法院管辖范围内所进行的有关诉讼 [63]

该集团的美国子公司于是就与法国诉讼程序相关的部分,撤回了其于加州法院提起的禁诉令 [64]

2019年11月14日,IPCom于巴黎法院就联想集团的法国主体、进口商(Modelabs Mobile)、以及经销商(Digital River Ireland Limited)针对EP 268的侵权行为,提起了主要的诉讼 [65]

Lenovo Inc.、Motorola Mobility LLC以及Motorola Mobility France et Lenovo(France)其后于2019年11月22日对巴黎法院在2019年11月8日作出的裁决提出上诉,要求对IPCom核发反禁诉令 [66]

美国地区法院于2019年12月12日作出裁定,认为联想和摩托罗拉未能提供充分的表面证据而足以证明美国法院就IPCom违反其对欧洲电信标准协会的合同义务所应承担的责任以及适用于全球范围的FRAND许可等问题享有司法管辖权 [67] 。美国地区法院允许了一项往后可能可以重新就管辖权存在与否的决定进行复审的证据发现程序,并终止了禁诉令 [52]

2020年1月20日,巴黎法院在预审程序中驳回了IPCom包括禁令、召回并没收涉案侵权产品直至专利到期失效为止等在内的暂时性救济主张 [68] 。法院认为采取这些救济措施显失公平,并且可能造成当事方间关系的失衡,使得IPCom得以利用此种不公平竞争的优势地位而在对方身上强加不符合FRAND的条款和条件 [69]

根据目前的判决,巴黎上诉法院(以下称“上诉法院”)维持了一审关于反禁诉令的判决 [70] 。然而,上诉法院于反禁诉令的适用范围中排除了对任何将来Lenovo Inc.和Motorola Mobility LLC为取得禁诉令而可能提起的新动议的适用 [52] 。 IPCom与上述联想集团旗下各公司之间的其他法院诉讼目前仍在审理中。


B. 法院的论理

联想的论点

联想集团旗下的各主体主张,法国法院无权审查IPCom针对其美国子公司所采取的措施。他们宣称,中止在法国进行的诉讼程序并不会对IPCom造成损害,因为美国地区法院已经被要求对FRAND许可费率进行判定 [71] 。对IPCom而言,其在法国进行的诉讼程序被中止的唯一风险是IPCom将被剥夺寻求禁令救济的权利,然而,巴黎法院在其他并行程序中的判决中已经拒绝了其寻求禁令救济的主张 [72]

此外,联想认为,于美国提起的禁诉令可以避免IPCom打算通过提起多个侵权诉讼而在许可谈判中取得优势此一情况发生,从而达成对双方权利的重新平衡 [73] 。因此,联想表示,IPCom在其愿意取得许可的情况下,仍然对其产品要求核发禁令,此一行为构成了对市场支配地位的滥用 [52]

联想进一步认为,禁诉令动议维持了案件中第一个被起诉的法院的管辖权,其并不会对法国法院的主权和管辖权造成妨碍,因此不违反法国或欧洲的国际公共秩序 [74] 。联想补充到,其所提起的禁诉令动议与IPCom所提起的反禁诉令本质上并没有什么不同。因此,上诉法院应质疑的是其判决对美国管辖区的主权可能产生的影响 [52]

联想提出了法国最高法院的一项判例法来支持这项论点,该判例认为只要一方提起禁诉令的目的旨在对先前合同义务的违反行为进行制裁,则该禁诉令可以被核发 [75] 。联想认为,此判例适用于本案, 因为IPCom拒绝提供FRAND许可,从而违反了其对ETSI的FRAND承诺 [52]

最后,联想主张,禁诉令动议并不存在明显的违法性,并且因为IPCom可以在美国地区法院充分行使其受司法审判的权利,并可以通过许可费的方式获得补偿,禁诉令动议也不会对IPCom受司法审判的权利或者财产权造成侵害 [76]

IPCom的论点

另一方面,IPCom主张,根据法国《民事诉讼法》第46条的规定,法国法院于实质上和领土上均具有管辖权,因为其所遭受的损害可能在法国发生 [77] 。此外,由于此一进行中的美国诉讼程序直到证据发现程序完备前已暂时中止,当事人仍然有可能在证据发现程序完备后向美国地区法院重新提起禁诉令动议 [52]

IPCom进一步主张,禁诉令动议对其包括《欧洲人权公约》第1、6-1和13条、以及《欧洲联盟基本权利宪章》第17条和第47条所保障的工业财产权与受公平审判的权利在内的各项基本权利造成了急迫性的损害。由于禁诉令仍然存在被核发的可能性,因此也有造成急迫性的损害的风险 [78] 。 IPCom还表示,美国的禁诉令动议对法国的国家主权造成了威胁,并违反了法国和欧洲的国际公共秩序 [79] ,因其试图禁止法国于其管辖区内行使其管辖权 [80] 。相反地,IPCom所提出的反禁诉令主张并未以剥夺被告基本权​​利或禁止美国法院行使其管辖权为其目的或结果 [81] 。事实上,该决定并未以禁止联想的美国子公司继续在美国进行诉讼程序为目标 [52]

此外,由于禁诉令动议阻碍了法国法院行使欧洲联盟规章1215/2015第7-2条和第24.4条所赋予其审查欧洲专利EP 268在法国的有效性和侵权性的权力,从而违反了国际公共秩序 [82] 。禁诉令动议同时剥夺了IPCom在其专利所覆盖的任何欧盟成员国中,就其知识产权的司法管辖权享有有效保障的权利 [52]

上诉法院的评估

上诉法院赞同了巴黎法院关于确认法国法院对本案主张具有管辖权的意见 [83] ,理由是损害可能会在法国发生 [52]

上诉法院裁定认为,如果IPCom的主张遭到拒绝,则将会剥夺其在法国法院行使或发起因EP 268专利的法国部分所享有的权利的可能性 [52] 。然而,法国法院所享有的管辖权则是依据《法国民事诉讼法》第46条(指侵权主张)而产生 [52]

上诉法院补充到,法国法院的管辖权也涵盖了预审程序,因为此类程序是附随于将对主要程序中的各项主张进行审查的法院的,而此类程序同样也可能受到禁诉令动议的影响 [84]

有关IPCom所提出主张的法律依据,上诉法院认为,美国的禁诉令动议将对IPCom造成显而易见的不法损害,因其将产生禁止IPCom提起或继续进行任何新的侵权诉讼的后果 [85] 。如此一来将造成对《欧洲联盟基本权利宪章》第17条以及《法国知识产权法》第L611-1和L615-1条的违反,因为IPCom将被剥夺其受有权裁判侵权案件的独任法官审判的权利 [86] 。此外,IPCom享有公平审判程序的权利也将被剥夺,而这违反了《欧洲人权公约》第6条第1项及第13项的规定 [52] 。最后,IPCom享有财产权的基本权利也将受到损害 [52]

但是,上诉法院驳回了IPCom关于禁止联想集团旗下各主体提起任何新禁诉令动议的主张 [87] 。上诉法院裁定认为,仅存在受损害的可能性并不足以构成对该禁令的核发 [88] 。因此,上诉法院在此一范围内推翻了一审法院的决定 [89]

  • [51] Court of Appeal of Paris, judgement dated 3 March 2020, 页 2, 段 4。
  • [52] 同上注。
  • [53] Court of Appeal of Paris judgement dated 3 March 2020, 页 2, 段 5。
  • [54] Court of Appeal of Paris, judgement dated 3 March 2020, 页2 及页3, 段 6。
  • [55] Court of Appeal of Paris, judgement dated 3 March 2020, 页 3, 段 6。
  • [56] Court of Appeal of Paris, judgement dated 3 March 2020, 页 3, 段 7。
  • [57] Court of Appeal of Paris, judgement dated 3 March 2020, 页 3, 段 8。
  • [58] Court of Appeal of Paris, judgement dated 3 March 2020, 页 3, 段 9。
  • [59] Court of Appeal of Paris, judgement dated 3 March 2020, 页 3, 段 10。
  • [60] Court of Appeal of Paris, judgement dated 3 March 2020, 页 3, 段 12。
  • [61] Court of Appeal of Paris, judgement dated 3 March 2020, 页 3, 段 13。
  • [62] Court of Appeal of Paris, judgement dated 3 March 2020, 页 3及页4, 段 13。
  • [63] Court of Appeal of Paris, judgement dated 3 March 2020, 页 4, 段 14。
  • [64] Court of Appeal of Paris, judgement dated 3 March 2020, 页 4, 段 15。
  • [65] Court of Appeal of Paris, judgement dated 3 March 2020, 页 4, 段 16。
  • [66] Court of Appeal of Paris, judgement dated 3 March 2020, 页 4, 段 17。联想子公司要求巴黎上诉法院修正其于2019年11月8日发布的反禁诉令,以否定其对Lenovo Inc. and Motorola Mobility LLC于美国地区法院提起的诉讼有审查的权限,并考虑美国法院判决对Lenovo (France) SAS以及Motorola Mobility France SAS的共同点,将IPCom移交给美国地区法院审理,驳回IPCom对Lenovo Inc.和Motorola Mobility LLC的所有主张,并责令IPCom支付50,000作为程序处理费用。
  • [67] Court of Appeal of Paris, judgement dated 3 March 2020, 页 4, 段 19。
  • [68] Court of Appeal of Paris, judgement dated 3 March 2020, 页4及页5, 段 20。
  • [69] Court of Appeal of Paris, judgement dated 3 March 2020, 页 5, 段 20。
  • [70] Court of Appeal of Paris, judgement dated 3 March 2020, 页 12, 段 1。
  • [71] Court of Appeal of Paris, judgement dated 3 March 2020, 页 6, 段 25。
  • [72] Court of Appeal of Paris, judgement dated 3 March 2020, 页 6, 段 26。
  • [73] Court of Appeal of Paris, judgement dated 3 March 2020, 页 6, 段 28。
  • [74] Court of Appeal of Paris, judgement dated 3 March 2020, 页6 及页7, 段 29。
  • [75] Court of Appeal of Paris, judgement dated 3 March 2020, 页 7, 段 30。
  • [76] Court of Appeal of Paris, judgement dated 3 March 2020, 页 7, 段 32。
  • [77] Court of Appeal of Paris, judgement dated 3 March 2020, 页 7, 段 34。
  • [78] Court of Appeal of Paris, judgement dated 3 March 2020, 页 8, 段 37。
  • [79] Court of Appeal of Paris, judgement dated 3 March 2020, 页 8, 段 39。
  • [80] [30] Court of Appeal of Paris, judgement dated 3 March 2020, 页 8, 段 39-40。
  • [81] [31] Court of Appeal of Paris, judgement dated 3 March 2020, 页 8, 段 40。
  • [82] Court of Appeal of Paris, judgement dated 3 March 2020, 页 8, 段 41。
  • [83] Court of Appeal of Paris, judgement dated 3 March 2020, 页 9, 段 45。
  • [84] Court of Appeal of Paris, judgement dated 3 March 2020, 页 9, 段 46。
  • [85] Court of Appeal of Paris, judgement dated 3 March 2020, 页10及页11, 段 56-57。
  • [86] Court of Appeal of Paris, judgement dated 3 March 2020, 页10-11, 段 57。
  • [87] Court of Appeal of Paris, judgement dated 3 March 2020, 页 11, 段 61- 64。
  • [88] Court of Appeal of Paris, judgement dated 3 March 2020, 页 11, 段 62-63。
  • [89] Court of Appeal of Paris, judgement dated 3 March 2020, 页 11, 段 64。