(米)SEPレート法案準備その後 Standard Essential Royalties Act（SERA)

米国で昨年１１月にMicrosoft, Fordなどのロビイストが提案しているStandard Essential Royalties Act(SERA)法案提出の準備があったが、その後の状況をUPDATEする。

SERAの趣旨はASIなどの国際裁判管轄の対抗のため米国で独自にFRANDレートを決定する専属裁判所をワシントンDCに設置しようとするもので、合わせてFRANDレートの計算決定の仕組みを導入しようとする試みだった。

この提案に関して米国内の議論で前者においては米国憲法第３条の改正にまで関係することと、後者の議論については算定手続・手法でSEP権利者と実施者との考えが一致していないSSPPU(部品レベルでのレート算出）などが明らかにされるなか、両者の対立で同法案が果たして議会審理に付されるかは疑問視されている。

参考の為昨年に提出された法案の一部が米国知財専門誌IPWATCHDOGのリンクで公開されていたのでそれを以下部分引用する。法案の全文は入手できていない。

SEC. 3. TECHNICAL STANDARDS ROYALTY COURT

Ҥ 221. Appointment of judges; offices.

“(a) The President shall appoint, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, five judges who shall constitute a court of record known as the Standards Royalty Court (hereinafter “court” in this chapter). The court is a court established under Article III of the Constitution of the United States.

... Ҥ222. Powers and duties.

“(a) The court’s jurisdiction shall be exclusive over and limited to, and the court shall have all powers in law and equity to adjudicate, actions under section 331 of title 35.

“(b) Cases and controversies shall be heard and determined by a panel of at least three judges. ...

Narrows the scope of patents subject RAND licensing obligations

“§ 331. Cause of action. “(a) A person shall have remedy by civil action in the Standards Royalty Court (hereinafter “court” in this chapter) to determine a reasonable and non-discriminatory licensing royalty rate for all United States patents that— “(1) would necessarily be infringed by the practice of a technical standard; and “(2) are committed to be licensed for reasonable and non-discriminatory royalties or on substantially equivalent terms.

“(b) A patent is committed to be licensed for reasonable and non-discriminatory royalties or on substantially equivalent terms if—

“(1) the patent has been identified by a person that contemporaneously owned the patent in whole or in part as subject to such a commitment; or

“(2) the patent is or has been owned in whole or in part by a person that has committed to license on such terms patents that would necessarily be infringed by the practice of the technical standard.

“(c) A person who participates in a standard-setting process and knowingly allows its technology to be incorporated into the technical standard shall be presumed to have committed to license its patents that claim such technology that is essential to the standard on reasonable and non-discriminatory terms.

Lays out a legal standard for determining RAND obligations

Ҥ 334. Determination and allocation of reasonable royalty rate.

“(a) The court shall consider all relevant evidence submitted by the parties under section 333. The court may obtain the opinions of independent analysts and experts as to the value, validity, or essentiality of any patent identified under section 333(d)(1), may require by subpoena the production of information or evidence from persons who are not a party to the action, and may assign matters for resolution by a magistrate judge as appropriate.

“(b) Upon briefing and a hearing, the court (without jury) shall determine— “(1) an overall reasonable royalty rate or rates for implementation of the technical standard;

“(2) each plaintiff’s entitlement to its appropriate portion of that royalty rate in view of the value of the technology claimed in the plaintiff’s patent claims that is essential to the standard; and

“(3) such other terms as are appropriately included in a license to a defendant.

Photo: Unsplash, Ian Hutchinson