（英）英国特許庁、SEPに関する意見募集開始 Call for views on SEP framework to UK-IPO

12月7日　米国DOJ（司法省）のSEPポリシーへの意見募集と相前後してUK-IPO（英国特許庁）もSEPとイノベーションへのインパクトについての意見募集を開始した(締切は来年3月１日)。詳細で広範な質問も加えられており、英国におけるイノベーション政策の核としてSEPを正面から捉えていることがよく理解できる。

https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/standard-essential-patents-and-innovation-call-for-views/standard-essential-patents-and-innovation-call-for-views

冒頭今回の意見募集目的についてUK IPOは”The government seeks views as to whether the Standard Essential Patents (SEPs) ecosystem (i.e. the enabling participants, commercial relationships, infrastructure, and legal and regulatory environment) surrounding SEPs is functioning efficiently and effectively and striking the right balance for all entities involved." 「英国政府は、SEPを取り巻くエコシステム（すなわちSEP関係者、商取引関係、インフラストラクチャ、法規制の環境）が効率的かつ効果的に機能しており、関係するすべての当事者に適切なバランスを取っているかについて意見を求めます。」と述べる。

今回の意見募集は本年7月22日発表されている英国におけるイノベーション戦略 UK Innovation Strategy: leading the future by creating it　の活動の一環と位置付けられており次の観点から検討を行おうとしている。

１）技術標準の役割と技術分野におけるSEPの役割

２）テレコム分野における分散化戦略（Diversification Strategy）

３）国際関係について

さらに、回答者の属性を尋ねた上、６分野で２７問の質問を投げかけている。

• SEP,イノベーション、競争の関係について

1. How does the SEPs ecosystem work effectively in a balanced way to support competition and innovation?

2. What actions or interventions would make the greatest improvements for consumers in the UK?

• 競争と市場摩擦について

3. In your view, are there issues in respect of market power in markets using SEPs? Examples are particularly sought on practices that create difficulties for industry or act as barriers to innovators.

4. Are you aware of evidence of circumstances where an implementer of a SEP is required to buy licences to a wider patent portfolio that is not relevant to the standard or component to which the SEP relates? Are there effective ways of resolving such issues?

5. Does the competition law framework impact the provisions in agreements between SEP owners in practice? If so, how does it do this? Is there room for improvement in order to better benefit and encourage competition and innovation?

6. In your view, what actions or steps can be taken to encourage competition and innovation in the SEPs ecosystem?

• システムの透明性について

7. Is there sufficient transparency around how patents are being declared as essential to the standard? What actions do industry, including SDOs undertake to ensure essentiality is understood?

8. Are you aware of instances of under-declaration or over-declaration and what issues does this create for markets using SEPs?

9. Would the introduction of an essentiality check service by an independent party improve licensing negotiations? Who would be the appropriate independent party to undertake essentiality checks?

10. How should an essentiality check take place? Should there be a level of legal certainty given to essentiality checks and assertions of essentiality by IPR holders? If so, how?

11. As SEP portfolios are negotiated with individual implementers, in your view is there sufficient transparency around pricing available when entering into negotiation? Is there a justification under FRAND for different SEP implementers, using the SEP for the same purpose, to be charged different rates for market access?

12. Would some form of pricing transparency be appropriate for supporting implementers in FRAND pricing negotiations?

• 特許侵害と救済について

　13. Views are sought from respondents on the role that the patent system plays in the development of SEPs and FRAND licensing and whether there are issues within current practice (including law and court judgments) that create issues for innovators. Please include case studies or worked examples, if possible.

　14. As patents are territorial in nature, does the current patent regime create a fair global market? Do SEP licensing costs vary by region?

　15. Are legal actions and injunctive actions taken equally against infringers of SEPs, regardless of their territorial presence?

　16. Does the current framework work for you in enforcing your rights conferred by holding the patent? For example, are injunctions an effective tool? What is the impact of anti-suit injunctions by implementers?

• SEPのライセンスについて

　17. In your view, how should the SEPs and FRAND licensing ecosystem adapt to new standard development for emerging technologies

　18. What if any, flexibilities exist within the IP framework that could improve the efficiency of obtaining a license for implementers?

　19. Do you have any views on any other ways of improving efficiency within the licensing landscape of SEPs?

　20. Would better use and access to patent pools offer improved efficiency around SEPs licensing? Or would greater use/access create barriers for innovators if there were limitations introduced i.e. cross-licensing?

　21 How are patent pools best created? To what extent should States, SDOs or other appropriate entities be involved (or excluded) from setting up patent pools?

　22. Are there alternative ways to address disputes on pricing mechanisms? For example, what point in the value chain provides an economic basis to calculate rates payable?

　23. How could schemes where there are specific definitions of what costs are allowable (percentage limits etc.) best be utilised?

• SEP訴訟について

　24. In your view, what are the benefits or drawbacks of national courts setting global licensing rates?

　25. Is reliance on courts to determine on a case by case basis whether a licence is FRAND efficient?

　26. How should industry led approaches for specific areas of SEPs arbitration be explored further? Do you also have views on alternatives to industry led solutions, for example government providing alternative ways of determining and resolving FRAND licensing disputes?

　27. Are there already effective alternative means of arbitration and dispute resolution away from courts in respect of FRAND licensing?

• その他

意見書は2022年3月１日までに意見書を添付した申込書に記入し、SEPcallforviews@ipo.gov.ukに提出する。

（ブログ筆者追記）一連の米DOJ,英国UK-IPOのSEPに関する意見書募集は、我が国の関係当局で現在進められている「SEPライセンス取引の交渉の在り方」の議論とは異なり、議論の公開性やSEPを単に交渉の手続き論と捉えるのではなく、イノベーションとの関連で正面から捉える点でそのSEP議論に本質的な違いが見られる。

Photo:Wix