「專利許可」中的誤述！

#本文由作者授權(quán)發(fā)布，未經(jīng)作者許可，禁止轉(zhuǎn)載，文章不代表IPRdaily立場(chǎng)#

發(fā)布：IPRdaily中文網(wǎng)（IPRdaily.cn）

作者：涂欣   騰龍一期

供稿：中國(guó)企業(yè)知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)研究院

原標(biāo)題：原創(chuàng)：專利許可中的誤述

什么是誤述？它在專利許可場(chǎng)景中是如何呈現(xiàn)的？

一份事實(shí)聲明，如果聲明中的細(xì)節(jié)和條款足夠確定，以致于能夠合理地引導(dǎo)被聲明方相信其真實(shí)性，以及依賴于該聲明，與聲明方達(dá)成協(xié)議，那么這份聲明就不是一份簡(jiǎn)單的觀點(diǎn)表述了，而應(yīng)被理解為陳述。一份不真實(shí)的此類聲明，可以被稱為誤述。

在專利許可場(chǎng)景下，許可方可以使用各種手段去實(shí)現(xiàn)專利資產(chǎn)的貨幣化，這些手段可能就包括了誤述。一個(gè)典型的示例模型如下圖所示：

What is a misrepresentation? How it present itself in apatent licensing scenario?

A person may make a statement of fact which is not couched simply asan expression of opinion but is made in such definite terms as reasonably tolead the person to whom the statement is made to believe it is true (however,it is not the case) and, in reliance on such statement, to enter into acontract with the maker of the statement. A statement of falsity as foresaid,shall be called a misrepresentation.

In the context of a patent licensing, a licensor may use a varietyof techniques to ensure monetization of its IP assets, which may include somemisrepresentations. A typical model therein is illustrated as follows.

1、關(guān)于Z公司進(jìn)入市場(chǎng)的路徑誤述

我們可以看見專利權(quán)人Q，專利權(quán)人E和專利權(quán)人N構(gòu)成了被許可人Z進(jìn)入英國(guó)[1]當(dāng)?shù)厥袌?chǎng)的路障。要通過這些路障，最有效的方式是從E處獲得一份專利許可（假定路徑距離最短代表許可費(fèi)最低）。為吸引Z達(dá)成許可協(xié)議，E可能在專利穩(wěn)定性和專利覆蓋范圍上進(jìn)行誤述。關(guān)于專利穩(wěn)定性，它可能陳述它的專利組合路障真實(shí)存在并發(fā)生效用；關(guān)于專利覆蓋范圍，它可能使得Z相信其付費(fèi)得來的專利許可范圍正是其為進(jìn)入市場(chǎng)而設(shè)想的必需的專利覆蓋范圍。

關(guān)于誤述，被許可人可以獲得的救濟(jì)概述

當(dāng)誤述發(fā)生時(shí)，許可協(xié)議是可撤銷的，所以被許可人可以選擇撤銷或繼續(xù)。因?yàn)楸辉S可人達(dá)成許可協(xié)議是基于不真實(shí)的基礎(chǔ)，所以，不論誤述是否是欺詐性的，疏忽性的，甚至完全無辜性質(zhì)的，衡平法上都給予被許可人撤銷協(xié)議的權(quán)利。

欺詐性誤述在侵權(quán)法律下是可訴的，并可因此尋求賠償救濟(jì)；忽略性誤述卻只能在許可人對(duì)于被許可人有注意義務(wù)時(shí)方可訴請(qǐng)賠償救濟(jì)的。然而，1967年在英國(guó)頒布的《誤述法》下，無辜的被陳述方對(duì)于任何性質(zhì)的誤述都有權(quán)賠償救濟(jì)，除非陳述方作出的為非欺詐性陳述，且陳述方有合理的理由自我確信所述事實(shí)為真。

撤銷和賠償?shù)哪Ｊ胶托Ч?br/>

撤銷許可協(xié)議的途徑有三種：被許可人可以通過向許可人發(fā)送意圖撤銷的通知以撤銷；許可人失聯(lián)致許可協(xié)議下許可人義務(wù)無法履行；或被許可人拒付許可費(fèi)。為避免疑惑之安全起見，被許可人可以在法院尋求協(xié)議已被或應(yīng)被撤銷的宣告判決，但即使如此，這類判決僅僅只是對(duì)撤銷的宣告或確認(rèn)，協(xié)議撤銷因被許可人的行為（如撤銷通知，宣告判決訴訟程序開始），而非法院判決而生效撤銷的效果是許可協(xié)議自始不存在。

因此撤銷的附隨效應(yīng)是恢復(fù)原狀，以阻止許可人不當(dāng)?shù)美?。許可協(xié)議下被許可人已付的許可費(fèi)應(yīng)當(dāng)退還給許可人。當(dāng)然撤銷權(quán)的行使也不是沒有限制的。被許可人如果知悉了許可人陳述的不真實(shí)，卻對(duì)協(xié)議效力加以確認(rèn)，或者，隨著時(shí)間的流逝，被許可人遲遲不予行使撤銷權(quán)，兩種行為都可能導(dǎo)致撤銷權(quán)的喪失。另外，在非欺詐性誤述時(shí)，法院可能要求被許可人接受賠償，而不是行使撤銷權(quán)。

1、Misrepresented route for access to market by Z

We maysee licensor Q, licensor E and licensor N constitute roadblock in businessavenue of licensee Z in UK market[1].  To pass through it, themost efficient way would be obtain a license from E under E’s patent (assumingthe shortest distance means least amount of royalties). To attract licensee Zto strike an agreement, E may make misrepresentation to assure licensee Z on bothpatentability and coverage. For patentability,it’s about there really exists a roadblock in effect (i.e., E’s patentportfolio). For coverage, E may make Z believe that the scope of license itwill pay for is consistent with the coverage Z has in mind necessary for thepurpose of access to market.

General remedies for Representation available to Licensee

When misrepresentation occurs the license agreement is voidable, sothe misrepresentee (in this case, i.e. licensee) has the option to void orcontinue.  Equity gives the licensee aright to rescind the contract, whether the misrepresentation was fraudulent,negligent or wholly innocent, for his entry into this license agreement hasbeen brought on a false basis.

While a fraudulent misrepresentation is actionable because the lawof tort gives a general damage remedy in deceit for fraudulent statements, anegligent misrepresentation may only be actionable because it is made incircumstances where the licensor owed the licensee a duty of care.  However, irregardless of the foresaid, the UKMisrepresentation Act 1967 gives the innocent party a right to damages unlessthe maker of a non-fraudulent misrepresentation can prove that he hadreasonable grounds to believe and did believe that the facts represented weretrue.   

Mode and effect of rescission and damage

Rescission may be effected by notice to the licensor of the licensee’sintention to rescind, or by conduct equivalent to such notice where thelicensor has absconded and cannot be traced (which leads to the obligationsunder license agreement cannot be fulfilled), or by withholding royalty underthe contract.  To safeguard himself incase of doubt, the licensee may ask for a declaration that the licenseagreement has been or ought to be rescinded. But even where a court order is sought, the rescission is the act of thelicensee, not of the court, and takes effect on giving notice of equivalentconduct, such as the commencement of proceedings.  The order is declaratory only.

The effect of rescission is to cancel the license agreement from thebeginning, to avoid it retrospectively so that it is treated as never havingexisted.  Hence a necessary concomitantof rescission is restitution in order to prevent the unjust enrichment of thelicensor.  Royalty paid under the licenseagreement shall be refunded to the licensee. The rescission does not effect without limitations.  The licensee may lose the right to rescind ifhe affirms the license agreement with knowledge of the falsity of therepresentation; and lapse of time also destroy a right to rescind.  On top of those, court may decide to make licenseeaccept damages in lieu of rescission in the case of non-fraudulentmisrepresentation.

另一方面，賠償救濟(jì)能夠使得被許可人獲得賠償，以使得被許可人盡可能處于協(xié)議按預(yù)期履行后本應(yīng)處于的位置。賠償救濟(jì)不關(guān)心恢復(fù)原狀，只關(guān)心損失（包括直接損失和間接損失）。直接損失意指交易損失，即許可協(xié)議下被許可人實(shí)際獲得價(jià)值與本應(yīng)獲得價(jià)值之差值。如果被許可人沒有承受損失，它能獲得的賠償微乎其微。 而間接損失意指履約相關(guān)費(fèi)用和利潤(rùn)損失，而這些都需要被許可人進(jìn)行適當(dāng)?shù)年惽楹妥C明。這些陳情和證明與關(guān)于損失產(chǎn)生事件的證據(jù)舉出有關(guān)，而這又引出了關(guān)于過往事件和將來可能事件的重要概念和區(qū)別。 過往事件的建立在于關(guān)于或然性的舉證，被許可人一旦舉證充分，證明事件的存在，則在法律視角上事件被證明，無須就其未發(fā)生的可能性給予任何折扣。這種建立方式是或全有或全無的。 但對(duì)于將來可能事件，被許可人則無法證明該事件將會(huì)發(fā)生。 因此，當(dāng)被許可人主張若非誤述而預(yù)期能從將來事件獲得的利潤(rùn)時(shí)，實(shí)際上被許可人主張的是關(guān)于未來利潤(rùn)獲取機(jī)會(huì)喪失的損失。一般來說，法院不會(huì)支持關(guān)于機(jī)會(huì)的猜測(cè)性估值，除非機(jī)會(huì)足夠重大。如果是那樣，法院會(huì)考慮利潤(rùn)可能不會(huì)被獲取的幾率，從而在賠償救濟(jì)中扣除相應(yīng)的折扣。

被許可人的選擇

回到剛才的例子，如果E公司進(jìn)行了誤述以引誘Z公司達(dá)成了許可協(xié)議。 Z公司可獲得的救濟(jì)將受到自身選擇的影響。

將定Z公司是一個(gè)智能手機(jī)制造商，Q公司，N公司和E公司是行業(yè)里的重要的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)專利持有者。Z公司意圖通過獲得E公司的專利許可以進(jìn)入英國(guó)市場(chǎng)，E簽署一份許可協(xié)議簽約以付給E公司一筆專利許可費(fèi)用以一勞永逸地解決英國(guó)市場(chǎng)商業(yè)運(yùn)營(yíng)的專利問題。然而，事實(shí)是Z公司真正需要的是應(yīng)向Q公司支付一筆專利費(fèi)用以進(jìn)入英國(guó)市場(chǎng)。

However, the function of damage is to compensate the licensee so asto put him as nearly as possible in the position in which he would have been ifthe license agreement had been performed. Damage is concerned not with restoration to pre-contractual position,but with compensation for normal loss andconsequential loss.  Normal loss means loss of bargain, representedby the difference between the actual value of what he received and the value hewould have received had the license been in position as represented.  If the licensee has suffered no loss, he isusually entitled to no more than nominal damages.  Consequential loss means expenditure and lossof profit, which must be properly pleaded and proved.  It is necessary for the licensee to adduceevidence as to the loss-producing event, and in this regard there is animportant distinction between past events and possible future events.  That a past event occurred has to beestablished on a balance of probabilities, and if it is so established theevent is considered proved (from law’s perspective) and no discount is made forthe possibility that it might not have happened.  The approach is all or nothing.  But it cannot be proved that an uncertainfuture event will occur.  So when alicensee claims damage for the loss of profits that might have been expected toflow from future events but for the misrepresentation, the claim is for loss ofchance that the future profits would have accrued.  Normally the court will not embark on avaluation of chance if it merely speculative, but if it is significant, then anappropriate discount must be made for the possibility that the anticipatedprofits would not have accrued.

Election of licensee

Back to example above, if Company E makes misrepresentation which isintended to and does induce the Company Z to enter into the license agreement.The remedy arised thereupon is materially affected by the election of CompanyZ.

Suppose Company Z is asmartphone manufacturer, and Company Q, Company N and Company E are someserious standard essential patent holders in the field. Company Z intends toenter UK market with patent license of Company E, who makes falserepresentation on the patentability and coverage of its own patents, andpersuade Company Z that some lump sum payment paid to Company E would clear theroute for business operation in UK, once and for all.  However, the truth is some payment to CompanyQ is what Company Z really need to payfor the purpose of entering into UKmarket.

2、進(jìn)入市場(chǎng)的真實(shí)路徑

受限于前文所述的關(guān)于撤銷權(quán)的一些限制，Z公司可以選擇撤銷本許可協(xié)議，協(xié)議自通知E公司時(shí)撤銷，E公司應(yīng)退還Z公司已付的許可費(fèi)。

如果Z公司選擇拒絕許可協(xié)議效力并主張賠償，那么這些賠償可有如下幾部分構(gòu)成。關(guān)于直接損失，Z公司有權(quán)從E公司獲得本應(yīng)付給Q公司的許可費(fèi)。 關(guān)于間接損失，有關(guān)過往事件相關(guān)損失，Z公司可以獲得它承受的費(fèi)用，例如營(yíng)銷費(fèi)用，物料成本，保險(xiǎn)成本和運(yùn)費(fèi)；有關(guān)將來可能事件相關(guān)損失，如果Z公司能夠適當(dāng)?shù)卦诜ㄔ宏惽楹妥C明，并說服法院，Z公司有權(quán)獲得智能手機(jī)銷售利潤(rùn)以及因首批銷售建立的商譽(yù)而引發(fā)的后續(xù)訂單收益。

許可人的出路

首先，許可人不應(yīng)當(dāng)做出任何誤述，無論欺詐性的，疏忽性的或者無辜性質(zhì)的誤述。這意味著許可人在內(nèi)部應(yīng)當(dāng)做到全面地盡調(diào)工作，并且在陳述時(shí)非常謹(jǐn)慎。

另外，如果察覺到風(fēng)險(xiǎn)（比如，Q、E和N的許可均需獲得，以便進(jìn)入目標(biāo)市場(chǎng)），許可人還應(yīng)當(dāng)在協(xié)議中通過澄清陳述和排除部分陳述以規(guī)避相應(yīng)風(fēng)險(xiǎn)。例如：

Z公司承認(rèn)為達(dá)成本協(xié)議目的Z公司仍需獲得第三方許可。雙方承認(rèn)和同意本協(xié)議中E公司基于其合理地審慎和勤勉地分析和調(diào)查做出陳述，雙方均持有合理的基礎(chǔ)相信該等陳述的真實(shí)性，以及Z公司未依賴于此產(chǎn)生的任何誤解達(dá)成本許可協(xié)議。

3、澄清的市場(chǎng)進(jìn)入路徑

我們可以看到通過這個(gè)條款，許可人排除了欺詐性誤述，疏忽性誤述和部分無辜性誤述（由于被許可人誤解引起的），以及使得被許可人尋求賠償救濟(jì)不太可能。盡管如此，條款中蘊(yùn)藏的理論有待實(shí)踐中法院的確認(rèn)。

2、True route for access to market by Z

Subject to the limitationsas foresaid, it is clear that if Company Z elects to rescind, upon notice to CompanyE, the license agreement is cancelled, and Company E shall refund royaltiespaid by Company Z as of the notice date.

If Company Z elects to treatthe license agreement repudiated and claim damage, there are several parts ofdamage.  For the normal loss, Company Z isentitled to payment to Company Q from Company E.  For the consequential loss, in respect ofpast events related loss, Company Z can recover expenditures it incurred, e.g.,marketing fee, material cost, insurance cost and freight; in respect ofpossible future events, Company might be entitled to the profit from sales ofsmartphones, and prospect of future contracts resulting from goodwill accruedfrom the first sales, so long as Company Z could properly plead, prove andconvince the court.

A way out for licensor

First and all, licensor shall not make any misrepresentation,whether in the form of fraudulent, negligent or innocent.  That means licensor shall do some thoroughdue diligent work, and be cautious in making any representations.

Second, licensor shall clarify and carve out some representation itmade if he smells any risks in it (e.g., both of Q’s and E’s licenses arenecessary for access to the market). For example:   

Company Z understands that thirdparty licenses shall be also obtained by Company Z.  Company E and Company Z understands andacknowledges that Company E makes representations in this Agreement based onits reasonably prudent and diligent efforts to analyze and investigate, bothparties have reasonable grounds to believe the truth of the representation, andCompany Z is in no reliance on any misunderstanding thereof to enter into thislicense agreement.

3、Clarified route for access to market by Z

We may see by thisclause licensor has excluded fraudulent misrepresentation, negligentmisrepresentation, and part of innocent misrepresentation (which arises out oflicensee’s misunderstanding), and made a resort to damage remedy less likelypossible, though the theory therein is yet to be affirmed in court.

注釋：

[1]本文試圖在普通法下作出評(píng)論，然后，考慮到美國(guó)法下成文法主導(dǎo)和案例法多樣發(fā)展的趨勢(shì)，在美國(guó)專利許可情景下，讀者可能要計(jì)入聯(lián)邦和州成文法，以及先例的因素以正確考量誤述的影響。

[1]This article aims to make observations under common law practice, however, considering recent tendency of domination of statutory law and various development of case law in US law system, one may factor in such federal & state statutory law and precedents, when predicting effect of misrepresentations in US patent licensing.

發(fā)布：IPRdaily中文網(wǎng)（IPRdaily.cn）

作者：涂欣   騰龍一期

供稿：中國(guó)企業(yè)知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)研究院

編輯：IPRdaily趙珍          校對(duì)：IPRdaily縱橫君

推薦閱讀

鏈接未來！「2018全球區(qū)塊鏈知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)峰會(huì)」重磅來襲！

2018年“中國(guó)好專利”評(píng)選工作正式開啟（報(bào)名通道）

2018中國(guó)·海淀高價(jià)值專利培育大賽正式開啟！（報(bào)名詳情）

“投稿”請(qǐng)投郵箱“iprdaily@163.com”

「關(guān)于IPRdaily」

IPRdaily成立于2014年，是全球影響力的知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)媒體+產(chǎn)業(yè)服務(wù)平臺(tái)，致力于連接全球知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)人，用戶匯聚了中國(guó)、美國(guó)、德國(guó)、俄羅斯、以色列、澳大利亞、新加坡、日本、韓國(guó)等15個(gè)國(guó)家和地區(qū)的高科技公司、成長(zhǎng)型科技企業(yè)IP高管、研發(fā)人員、法務(wù)、政府機(jī)構(gòu)、律所、事務(wù)所、科研院校等全球近50多萬產(chǎn)業(yè)用戶（國(guó)內(nèi)25萬+海外30萬）；同時(shí)擁有近百萬條高質(zhì)量的技術(shù)資源+專利資源，通過媒體構(gòu)建全球知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)資產(chǎn)信息第一入口。2016年獲啟賦資本領(lǐng)投和天使匯跟投的Pre-A輪融資。

（英文官網(wǎng)：iprdaily.com  中文官網(wǎng)：iprdaily.cn） 

本文來自中國(guó)企業(yè)知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)研究院并經(jīng)IPRdaily.cn中文網(wǎng)編輯。轉(zhuǎn)載此文章須經(jīng)權(quán)利人同意，并附上出處與作者信息。文章不代表IPRdaily.cn立場(chǎng)，如若轉(zhuǎn)載，請(qǐng)注明出處：“http://m.jupyterflow.com/”