earticle

영어

Recently, many commercial standardization arrangements incorporating patented technologies in a standard have been vigorously made. Standardization could lead many beneficial effects of product interoperability and compatibility reducing barriers to entry, or creation of unified platforms for development of new products. However, the standardization including certain patented technologies would cause the incorporated technology to be a necessary factor for businesses to survive in the relevant market adopting the standard. For this reason, standardization process may be affected by patent proprietors wanting certain standard including their patented technology to be adopted. Usually, Standard?setting Organization(SSO) require their members to reveal all their pending or existing patents before adoption of a standard. Sometimes, the SSO could try to avoid particular patents as necessary factor in a standard when it becomes aware of the patents. The SSO’s behavior could allow the adopted standard to be opened participants in a relevant market. However, patent proprietors have been reluctant to disclose all their existing or pending patents in standard?setting process. In several cases, this incomplete disclosure has been combined with a refusal to license or a demand for excessive terms after the standard requiring the proprietors’ patents has been set. Moreover, SSOs would demand their members to promise to license an unidentified patent on FRAND (fair, reasonable and non?discriminatory) terms to use its patented technology. In that case, false FRAND commitment may be part of a strategy designed to influence the SSO's technology choice. In this reason, the breach of FRAND commitment case was brought to the court with accusation of violation of antitrust law. The patent proprietor’s concealment of patent or false commitment could affect competition to the extent that it leads the SSO to adopt a lower quality standard rather than otherwise the SSO would choose. For this reason, when patent proprietor’s behavior causes the SSO not to verify the openness of the claimed patent, it should be under investigation of a competition agency.