Tesla v. InterDigital/Avanci 英国High Court Tesla敗訴
- toshifutamata0
- 2024年7月29日
- 読了時間: 5分
更新日：2024年7月30日
既報のように中国はパテントプールのグローバルレートに対する中国の管轄権を最高人民法院が認めたが、一方英国ではテスラが英国でのAvanciグローバルレートを再決定させようとの主張は認められなかった。
Photo: Unsplash, Chris Boland
（7月30日ブログUPDATE)
Teslaは、InterDigitalのFRAND宣言の対象である英国の3件のSEPは必須でない/無効であると主張し、InterDigitalが66社が参加するAvanciプールにおいて代表的地位にあるAvanciのグローバルライセンスレート（＄32）が高額すぎるとして、Avanci 5Gプールのレート見直しの主張を行った。
今回InterDigitalに関していわゆるrepresentative procedure の是非が争われた。7月15日英国裁判所はInterDigitalがAvanciに加入している権利者66社を代表するというTeslaの主張を採用せず、Teslaの請求の構成（Pleadings)に基づく管轄を認容しなかった。そのうえ本事案の最適裁判地Forum Conveniensを英国ではなく両社が本拠地とする米国と判示した。
裁判所の述べた理由は英国の訴訟手続きに依拠するところもあり、複雑だが主に下記が理由とされた。(在ロンドン日高誓子英国弁護士のメモを引用する)
· Avanciは特許をSEP保有者から集め、ポートフォリオライセンスをオファーする機関にすぎず、特許を所有していない。したがってETSIでFRAND宣言をする必要がなく、実際に行っていない。
· Avanciのメンバーの66社はそれぞれ自社の特許をFRANDな条件でライセンスする約束をETSIに宣言している。Avanci自身はそれらメンバーの特許ポートフォリオのライセンスを提供しており、そのライセンスの条件はFRANDであると信じているが、法律的にFRANDなライセンスをオファーをする義務はない。
· InterDigitalは他の65社のメンバーを代表する立場にいない。他社と立場が異なる可能性がある（例えば、65社の中にはSEPは保有しているが、販売の方が多い実施者もいる）。InterDigitalにはcomparable ライセンスを他社に求める権利もないし、他メンバーに代わって交渉代表を務めさせる負担は大きすぎ、公平ではない。InterDigitalを他65名のAvanciのメンバーの代表として訴える事はできない。
Tesla's 主張Claims（英国裁判所がこの事件の管轄を認めるべき理由）とそれに対する英国裁判所の見解（控訴の可能性あり）:
3件のIDC SEPはSEPではない 。 Tesla claimed the revocation and declaration of non-essentiality of 3 InterDigital UK SEPs.
· The UK Court clearly has jurisdiction to hear this claim.
· However, Court finds that the claims are irrelevant to the Licensing claim – Tesla has undertaken to accept Avanci 5G Platform licence on whatever the UK Court deems as being FRAND.
· Court finds that this patent claim was properly served on IDPH (the patent owner) and IDH (party which has given the undertaking to ETSI, and with the responsibility to licence the patents), because IDH would be clearly interested in the outcome. However, given the above point, the SEP revocation and non-essentiality case is stayed indefinitely.
2. AVANCIにFRAND義務あり Tesla claimed that FRAND commitment is enforceable against Avanci alone. Avanci, as an appointed agent, is jointly liable for “any failure to effect good faith performance of the FRAND Commitment” – which is the performance by the Patentees(members of the Avanci SEP holders).
· Court finds: Avanci not under legal obligation to offer FRAND licences. Joint liability in case Patentees are found to have failed to grant a FRAND licence is too remote. Therefore there is no dispute between Tesla and Avanci about a legal right, even though Avanci is commercially interested in any determination of such claim. The Court cannot assume jurisdiction of the claim against Avanci (unless Avanci can be said to be a necessary or proper party to the licensing claim against InterDigital).
3. TeslaはIDHがETSIに行ったFRAND宣言の第三受益者、宣言の効果についてIDHに主張できる Tesla claims that it is a beneficiary of IDH's undertaking to ETSI, and claims a declaration to that effect, and that the terms of the Avanci licence (which includes InterDigital's UK SEPs) is not FRAND, and the determination of the correct rate.
· The Court here examined whether Tesla had a case against IDH alone (test for assuming jurisdiction). Court finds that Tesla is very likely to be a beneficiary of IDH's undertaking to ETSI. There is a useful purpose for granting the declaration sought, because the terms of the Avanci licence should be capable of challenge. However, it cannot be said to be fair and just to grant the declarations sought in the absence of Avanci and the Patentees. Furthermore, without the Patentees the Court would be unable to obtain and assess the FRANDness of the Avanci licence without the requisite不可欠の comparable licences. Therefore, there is no serious issue to be tried against IDH for the declaration sought (or the determination of a WW FRAND rate).
4. InterDigitalをAvanciのSEP保有者を代表する企業として訴えることができる Tesla claimed that InterDigital can be sued as representative company on behalf of all Avanci's members (Patentees).
· The effect of suing IDH as representative of the Patentees is that the Patentees would be bound by the outcome of the claim and any declarations made, and that the Order made by the Court at the conclusion of the proceedings could be enforced against them (if necessary), but only with the permission of the court. However, the Court found that the Tesla claim could not go ahead using IDH as a representative of the Patentees owing to the following issues:
· The court also found that judgment given on a representative basis may well not bind the Patentees so far as foreign courts are concerned, as there will have been no judgment against the Patentees and no issue decided in a claim to which the Patentees were parties
· Use of the representative procedure does not, however, remove the practical difficulty of conducting a FRAND licensing trial without the relevant parties before it (eg. in terms of obtaining key evidence, such as comparable licences to calculate the FRAND rate)
· For IDH to act as a representative of a class of defendants, it must be shown that the interests of the parties within the class (ie: Patentees and IDH) are aligned. This was not demonstrated.
· It was not shown that each member of Avanci will have UK 5G SEP – in the circumstances it may be difficult to serve the proceedings on such defendants as a matter of UK procedural law. It would then be difficult to bind those Patentees to any judgment made.
· It is not fair on IDH to shoulder the burden of proving the FRAND rate on behalf of all Patentees
英国裁判所判示：Forum Conveniens (Tesla needs to show that the UK is the most appropriate forum to hear the case for the UK Court to assume jurisdiction)
· The Court found that the Delaware Court is available and appropriate, given that InterDigital and Avanci have agreed not to object to jurisdiction of that Court.
· The Court concluded that Tesla's claim clearly has a closer connection to the US than with the UK. All the parties are based in the US.
本記事は在ロンドン日高誓子英国弁護士から提供いただいた現地メモを再構成して掲載した。
その他本事案に関する関連記事としては他に
IPFRAY 2024年6月4日付
2024年7月18日付
Reuter 7月16日付
Comments