퀄컴 사건의 의미와 시사점

Abstract

The Korea Fair Trade Commission’s (KFTC) two decisions against Qualcomm on it's standard-essential patent (SEP) licensing practices have significant implications for Korea's competition law enforcement. Above all, they provided opportunities for full-fledged discussions on the relationship between intellectual property rights such as patents and competition law in Korea, and clearly recognized the competition policy meaning of the FRAND commitment.The KFTC also sent important signals for competition law enforcement on IP-related issues in the future. First, it applied the same criteria as in cases where other tangible property rights are involved in determining whether the SEP licensing practice is a violation of the Korea Monopoly Regulation Act (Korea Monopoly Regulation Act). Second, it changed its prior position and acknowledged that the SEP constitute the essential element under the Korea Monopoly Regulation Act. Third, it put an emphasis on the breach of FRAND commitments as a basis of finding anti-competitive intent or purpose and anti-competitive concerns. Furthermore, in assessing the illegality of the FRAND commitment breach by the SEP holders, the KFTC did not consider only its impact on the patented technology licensing market and related product markets, but also on the innovation market and the final consumer's welfare.One the other hand, the KFTC did not clearly say that the level of royalties itself imposed by Qualcomm was excessive or unfair. while it found that Qualcomm's conduct in question was a violation of the FRAND commitment by focusing on procedural aspects of the FRNAD commitment.Lastly, the KFTC did not only declare the illegality of Qualcomm's SEP licensing practices, but also impose a licensing obligation with specific procedures for negotiating license terms among the parties.