「專利許可」中的誤述！

#本文由作者授權發布，未經作者許可，禁止轉載，文章不代表IPRdaily立場#

發布：IPRdaily中文網（IPRdaily.cn）

作者：涂欣   騰龍一期

供稿：中國企業知識產權研究院

原標題：原創：專利許可中的誤述

什么是誤述？它在專利許可場景中是如何呈現的？

一份事實聲明，如果聲明中的細節和條款足夠確定，以致于能夠合理地引導被聲明方相信其真實性，以及依賴于該聲明，與聲明方達成協議，那么這份聲明就不是一份簡單的觀點表述了，而應被理解為陳述。一份不真實的此類聲明，可以被稱為誤述。

在專利許可場景下，許可方可以使用各種手段去實現專利資產的貨幣化，這些手段可能就包括了誤述。一個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、關于Z公司進入市場的路徑誤述

我們可以看見專利權人Q，專利權人E和專利權人N構成了被許可人Z進入英國[1]當地市場的路障。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最低）。為吸引Z達成許可協議，E可能在專利穩定性和專利覆蓋范圍上進行誤述。關于專利穩定性，它可能陳述它的專利組合路障真實存在并發生效用；關于專利覆蓋范圍，它可能使得Z相信其付費得來的專利許可范圍正是其為進入市場而設想的必需的專利覆蓋范圍。

關于誤述，被許可人可以獲得的救濟概述

當誤述發生時，許可協議是可撤銷的，所以被許可人可以選擇撤銷或繼續。因為被許可人達成許可協議是基于不真實的基礎，所以，不論誤述是否是欺詐性的，疏忽性的，甚至完全無辜性質的，衡平法上都給予被許可人撤銷協議的權利。

欺詐性誤述在侵權法律下是可訴的，并可因此尋求賠償救濟；忽略性誤述卻只能在許可人對于被許可人有注意義務時方可訴請賠償救濟的。然而，1967年在英國頒布的《誤述法》下，無辜的被陳述方對于任何性質的誤述都有權賠償救濟，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為真。

撤銷和賠償的模式和效果

撤銷許可協議的途徑有三種：被許可人可以通過向許可人發送意圖撤銷的通知以撤銷；許可人失聯致許可協議下許可人義務無法履行；或被許可人拒付許可費。為避免疑惑之安全起見，被許可人可以在法院尋求協議已被或應被撤銷的宣告判決，但即使如此，這類判決僅僅只是對撤銷的宣告或確認，協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議自始不存在。

因此撤銷的附隨效應是恢復原狀，以阻止許可人不當得利。許可協議下被許可人已付的許可費應當退還給許可人。當然撤銷權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，卻對協議效力加以確認，或者，隨著時間的流逝，被許可人遲遲不予行使撤銷權，兩種行為都可能導致撤銷權的喪失。另外，在非欺詐性誤述時，法院可能要求被許可人接受賠償，而不是行使撤銷權。

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議按預期履行后本應處于的位置。賠償救濟不關心恢復原狀，只關心損失（包括直接損失和間接損失）。直接損失意指交易損失，即許可協議下被許可人實際獲得價值與本應獲得價值之差值。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費用和利潤損失，而這些都需要被許可人進行適當的陳情和證明。這些陳情和證明與關于損失產生事件的證據舉出有關，而這又引出了關于過往事件和將來可能事件的重要概念和區別。 過往事件的建立在于關于或然性的舉證，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。 但對于將來可能事件，被許可人則無法證明該事件將會發生。 因此，當被許可人主張若非誤述而預期能從將來事件獲得的利潤時，實際上被許可人主張的是關于未來利潤獲取機會喪失的損失。一般來說，法院不會支持關于機會的猜測性估值，除非機會足夠重大。如果是那樣，法院會考慮利潤可能不會被獲取的幾率，從而在賠償救濟中扣除相應的折扣。

被許可人的選擇

回到剛才的例子，如果E公司進行了誤述以引誘Z公司達成了許可協議。 Z公司可獲得的救濟將受到自身選擇的影響。

將定Z公司是一個智能手機制造商，Q公司，N公司和E公司是行業里的重要的標準專利持有者。Z公司意圖通過獲得E公司的專利許可以進入英國市場，E簽署一份許可協議簽約以付給E公司一筆專利許可費用以一勞永逸地解決英國市場商業運營的專利問題。然而，事實是Z公司真正需要的是應向Q公司支付一筆專利費用以進入英國市場。

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、進入市場的真實路徑

受限于前文所述的關于撤銷權的一些限制，Z公司可以選擇撤銷本許可協議，協議自通知E公司時撤銷，E公司應退還Z公司已付的許可費。

如果Z公司選擇拒絕許可協議效力并主張賠償，那么這些賠償可有如下幾部分構成。關于直接損失，Z公司有權從E公司獲得本應付給Q公司的許可費。 關于間接損失，有關過往事件相關損失，Z公司可以獲得它承受的費用，例如營銷費用，物料成本，保險成本和運費；有關將來可能事件相關損失，如果Z公司能夠適當地在法院陳情和證明，并說服法院，Z公司有權獲得智能手機銷售利潤以及因首批銷售建立的商譽而引發的后續訂單收益。

許可人的出路

首先，許可人不應當做出任何誤述，無論欺詐性的，疏忽性的或者無辜性質的誤述。這意味著許可人在內部應當做到全面地盡調工作，并且在陳述時非常謹慎。

另外，如果察覺到風險（比如，Q、E和N的許可均需獲得，以便進入目標市場），許可人還應當在協議中通過澄清陳述和排除部分陳述以規避相應風險。例如：

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

3、澄清的市場進入路徑

我們可以看到通過這個條款，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不太可能。盡管如此，條款中蘊藏的理論有待實踐中法院的確認。

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論，然后，考慮到美國法下成文法主導和案例法多樣發展的趨勢，在美國專利許可情景下，讀者可能要計入聯邦和州成文法，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.

發布：IPRdaily中文網（IPRdaily.cn）

作者：涂欣   騰龍一期

供稿：中國企業知識產權研究院

編輯：IPRdaily趙珍          校對：IPRdaily縱橫君

推薦閱讀

鏈接未來！「2018全球區塊鏈知識產權峰會」重磅來襲！

2018年“中國好專利”評選工作正式開啟（報名通道）

2018中國·海淀高價值專利培育大賽正式開啟?。▓竺斍椋?/span>

“投稿”請投郵箱“iprdaily@163.com”

「關于IPRdaily」

IPRdaily成立于2014年，是全球影響力的知識產權媒體+產業服務平臺，致力于連接全球知識產權人，用戶匯聚了中國、美國、德國、俄羅斯、以色列、澳大利亞、新加坡、日本、韓國等15個國家和地區的高科技公司、成長型科技企業IP高管、研發人員、法務、政府機構、律所、事務所、科研院校等全球近50多萬產業用戶（國內25萬+海外30萬）；同時擁有近百萬條高質量的技術資源+專利資源，通過媒體構建全球知識產權資產信息第一入口。2016年獲啟賦資本領投和天使匯跟投的Pre-A輪融資。

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

本文來自中國企業知識產權研究院并經IPRdaily.cn中文網編輯。轉載此文章須經權利人同意，并附上出處與作者信息。文章不代表IPRdaily.cn立場，如若轉載，請注明出處：“http://www.tyccp663.com/”