| | |
| Twenty Model Anti-monopoly and Anti-unfair Competition Cases Tried by the People's Courts Published by the Supreme People's Court | | 最高人民法院发布二十起人民法院反垄断和反不正当竞争典型案例 |
| (November 17, 2022) | | （2022年11月17日） |
| Model Anti-monopoly Cases Tried by the People's Courts | | 人民法院反垄断典型案例 |
| Table of Contents | | 目录 |
| 1. Case involving a "driving school pooling" hardcore cartel agreement dispute (No. 1722 [2021] Final, Civil, IP, SPC of the Supreme People's Court)—Determination of the validity of a contract alleged to be a hardcore cartel agreement | | 1. “驾校联营”横向垄断协议纠纷案【最高人民法院（2021）最高法知民终1722号】--涉横向垄断协议的合同效力认定 |
| 2. Case involving a dispute over the hardcore cartel agreement, "de-energized tap-changer patent infringement settlement agreement" (No. 1298 [2021] Final, Civil, IP, SPC of the Supreme People's Court)—Anti-monopoly review of abuse of intellectual property rights | | 2. “无励磁开关专利侵权和解协议”横向垄断协议纠纷案【最高人民法院（2021）最高法知民终1298号】--滥用知识产权行为的反垄断审查 |
| 3. Case involving a "kindergarten" hardcore cartel agreement dispute (No. 2253 [2021] Final, Civil, IP, SPC of the Supreme People's Court)—Determination of hardcore cartel participants' claim for compensation for breach of contract | | 3. “幼儿园”横向垄断协议纠纷案【最高人民法院（2021）最高法知民终2253号】--横向垄断协议实施者违约赔偿请求权的认定 |
| 4. Case involving an invention patent infringement with respect to the "reverse payment agreement related to the patent for Saxagliptin Tablets" (No. 388 [2021] Final, Civil, IP, SPC of the Supreme People's Court)—Anti-monopoly review in a non-monopoly case | | 4. “涉沙格列汀片剂药品专利反向支付协议”发明专利侵权纠纷案【最高人民法院（2021）最高法知民终388号】--非垄断案由案件中的反垄断审查 |
| 5. Case involving a "Yan'an concrete enterprise" contract dispute and a hardcore cartel agreement dispute (No. 509 [2020] First, Civil, IP, 01, Shaanxi of the Intermediate People's Court of Xi'an City, Shaanxi Province)—Calculation of damages arising from a hardcore cartel agreement | | 5. “延安混凝土企业”合同纠纷及横向垄断协议纠纷案【陕西省西安市中级人民法院（2020）陕01知民初509号】--横向垄断协议的损害赔偿计算 |
| 6. Case involving a dispute over abuse of a dominant market position with respect to "Chinese Super League images" (No. 1790 [2021] Final, Civil, IP, SPC of the Supreme People's Court)—Anti-monopoly review of the exclusive licensing of commercial rights to sports events | | 6. “涉中超联赛图片”滥用市场支配地位纠纷案【最高人民法院（2021）最高法知民终1790号】--体育赛事商业权利独家授权中的反垄断审查 |
| 7. Case involving a dispute over abuse of a dominant market position by "Weihai Water Group" (No. 395 [2022] Final, Civil, IP, SPC of the Supreme People's Court)—Determination of restriction of transactions by a public utility enterprise and calculation of damages | | 7. “威海水务集团”滥用市场支配地位纠纷案【最高人民法院（2022）最高法知民终395号】--公用企业限定交易行为的认定及损害赔偿计算 |
| 8. Case involving an anti-monopoly administrative penalty for "a hardcore cartel agreement among Hainan fire protection testing enterprises" (No. 880 [2021] Final, Administrative, IP, SPC of the Supreme People's Court)—Understanding of the base for anti-monopoly fines, "sales for the previous year" | | 8. “海南消防检测企业横向垄断协议”反垄断行政处罚案【最高人民法院（2021）最高法知行终880号】--反垄断罚款基数“上一年度销售额”的理解 |
| 9. Case involving an anti-monopoly administrative penalty for "a hardcore cartel agreement among Maoming concrete enterprises" (No. 29 [2022] Final, Administrative, IP, SPC of the Supreme People's Court)—Determination of "other concerted practices" and understanding of "previous year" | | 9. “茂名混凝土企业横向垄断协议”反垄断行政处罚案【最高人民法院（2022）最高法知行终29号】--“其他协同行为”的认定以及“上一年度”的理解 |
| 10. Case involving an anti-monopoly administrative penalty for "the Huizhou Motor Vehicle Inspection Industry Association's hardcore cartel agreement" (No. 12 [2020] First, Administrative, 73, Guangdong of Guangzhou Intellectual Property Court)—Anti-monopoly review of the alleged monopolistic conduct of an industry association | | 10. “惠州市机动车检测行业协会横向垄断协议”反垄断行政处罚案【广州知识产权法院（2020）粤73行初12号】--行业协会行为的反垄断审查 |
| 1. Case involving a "driving school pooling" hardcore cartel agreement dispute | | 1.“驾校联营”横向垄断协议纠纷案 |
| —Determination of the validity of a contract alleged to be a hardcore cartel agreement | | --涉横向垄断协议的合同效力认定 |
| [Case Number] | | 【案号】 |
| No. 1722 [2021] Final, Civil, IP, SPC of the Supreme People's Court (Taizhou Luqiao Jili Motor Vehicle Driving Training Co., Ltd. and Taizhou Luqiao District Chengrong Driver Training Co., Ltd. v. Taizhou Luqiao District Donggang Automobile Driving Training School and Taizhou Luqiao District Zhedong Driver Training Service Co., Ltd. (hardcore cartel agreement dispute)) | | 最高人民法院（2021）最高法知民终1722号〔台州市路桥吉利机动车驾驶培训有限公司、台州市路桥区承融驾驶员培训有限公司诉台州市路桥区东港汽车驾驶培训学校等、台州市路桥区浙东驾驶员培训服务有限公司横向垄断协议纠纷案〕 |
| [Basic Facts] | | 【基本案情】 |
| In Jili Driving Training Company and Chengrong Driving Training Company v. 13 sued driving training entities including Donggang Driving Training Company and Zhedong Driver Training Company (as a third party) (hardcore cartel agreement dispute), 15 driving training entities involved in the case in Luqiao District, Taizhou City, Zhejiang Province signed a pooling agreement and a self-regulatory pact, agreeing to jointly contribute capital to form an associated company, Zhedong Driver Training Company, fix the price of driving training services, restrict the flow of trainer vehicles and trainers between driving training institutions, enable Zhedong Driver Training Company to uniformly provide auxiliary services (such as registration, health examination, and card making) previously scattered among the 15 driving training entities involved in the case at the same site, and allow Zhedong Driver Training Company to correspondingly charge a service fee of 850 yuan. In particular, Article 3 of the pooling agreement specifically stipulated the registered capital and equity structure of the associated company. Among the 15 driving training entities involved in the case, Jili Driving Training Company and Chengrong Driving Training Company sued in the court on the grounds that the 15 entities conducted monopolistic operations, requesting a confirmation of the invalidity of the pooling agreement and the self-regulatory pact. The court of first instance entered a judgment, confirming the invalidity of the relevant clauses of the pooling agreement and the self-regulatory pact that constituted the hardcore cartel agreement, but held that the unified handling of the original scattered auxiliary services involved in the case by Zhedong Driver Training Company could improve service quality, reduce costs, and increase efficiency and that its charging of a service fee of 850 yuan met the conditions of exemption of monopoly agreements. Jili Driving Training Company and Chengrong Driving Training Company filed an appeal, requesting a modification of the judgment to confirm that the capital stock structure clause of the pooling agreement was invalid and that the reason for the exemption of the fixed price agreement stated by 13 sued driving training companies including Donggang Driving Training Company was unfounded. The Supreme People's Court held at second instance that if business operators which reached a monopoly agreement intended to claim exemption on the grounds that the agreement fell under the circumstances set forth in paragraph 1(1) through (5) of Article 15 of the Anti-monopoly Law which came into force in 2008, they should provide sufficient evidence that the agreement had positive competitive effects or economic and social effects referred to in any of the above five statutory circumstances, and such effects were concrete and realistic, instead of relying solely on general speculation or abstract presumption; that when the business operators did not provide authentic and valid evidence that supported their claim for exemption, the court of first instance presumed the effects of the unified provision of services by Zhedong Driver Training Company mainly based on general experience, and directly determined that its unified collection of the fee fell under the circumstances for exemption of monopoly agreements, improperly applying the law; that contractual provisions that violated the provisions of the Anti-monopoly Law on prohibiting monopolistic conduct were invalid in principle; that if the invalid part of a contract affected the effect of the other parts, such other parts should also be invalid; that Article 3 of the pooling agreement involved in the case mainly served as a tool for the parties to implement the hardcore cartel agreement and achieve the purpose of market monopoly; and that the need to eliminate and reduce the risk of monopolistic conduct and the accomplishment of the legislative purpose of the Anti-monopoly Law to prevent and stop monopolistic conduct should also be taken into account in judging whether a contract or contractual provisions were invalid because of a violation of the Anti-monopoly Law. The Supreme People's Court entered a final judgment, setting aside the first-instance judgment, confirming the invalidity of the pooling agreement and the self-regulatory pact involved in the case in their entirety. | | 在吉利驾培公司、承融驾培公司与东港驾培公司等13家被诉驾培单位以及第三人浙东驾培公司横向垄断协议纠纷案中，同在浙江省台州市路桥区的涉案15家驾培单位签订联营协议及自律公约，约定共同出资设立联营公司即浙东驾培公司，固定驾驶培训服务价格、限制驾驶培训机构间的教练车辆及教练员流动，涉案15家驾培单位原先分散的辅助性服务（如报名、体检、制卡等）均由浙东驾培公司统一在同一现场处理，浙东驾培公司对应收取服务费850元。其中，联营协议第三条具体约定联营公司设立的注册资本与股本结构。涉案15家驾培单位中的吉利驾培公司和承融驾培公司以该15家单位构成垄断经营为由，向法院起诉，请求确认联营协议及自律公约无效。一审法院判决确认涉案联营协议及自律公约中构成横向垄断协议的相关条款无效，但同时认为，浙东驾培公司统一处理涉案原先分散的辅助性服务，可提高服务质量、降低成本、增进效率，其收取850元服务费的行为符合垄断协议豁免条件。吉利驾培公司、承融驾培公司不服，提起上诉，请求改判确认联营协议中股本结构条款无效，东港驾培公司等13家被诉驾培单位提出的固定价格协议豁免理由不能成立。最高人民法院二审认为，达成垄断协议的经营者欲以该协议具有2008年施行的反垄断法第十五条第一款第一项至第五项情形为由主张豁免，应当提供充分证据证明协议具有上述五项法定情形之一项下所指积极的竞争效果或经济社会效果，且该效果是具体的、现实的，而不能仅仅依赖一般性推测或者抽象推定；一审法院在经营者没有提供真实、有效证据支持其豁免主张情况下，主要根据一般经验推定浙东驾培公司统一提供服务的效果，直接认定其统一收费符合垄断协议豁免情形，适用法律不当。合同条款违反反垄断法关于禁止垄断行为的规定原则上无效；如果合同无效部分会影响其他部分效力的，其他部分也应无效；涉案联营协议第三条的约定主要是当事人实施横向垄断协议、实现市场垄断目的的手段；判断合同或者合同条款是否因违反反垄断法而无效时，还应该考虑消除和降低垄断行为风险的需要，实现反垄断法预防和制止垄断行为的立法目的。最高人民法院终审判决，撤销一审判决，确认案涉联营协议及自律公约全部无效。 |
| [Significance] | | 【典型意义】 |
| This case emphasizes that parties claiming exemption of a monopoly agreement shall bear the burden of proving the relevant actual effects, and specifies the principles, considerations, and value objectives for determining the invalidity of civil acts involved in hardcore cartel agreements. The adjudication on this case is of exemplary significance for the people's courts' actively performing their anti-monopoly judicial function, eliminating and reducing the hidden risks of monopolistic conduct in accordance with the law, maintaining fair competition in the market, and achieving the legislative purpose of the Anti-monopoly Law to prevent and stop monopolistic conduct. | | 本案强调当事人主张垄断协议豁免应当承担具体证明有关实际效果的举证责任，同时明确了认定涉横向垄断协议的民事行为无效的原则、考量因素与价值目标。本案裁判对于人民法院积极发挥反垄断司法职能作用，依法消除和降低垄断行为风险隐患，维护市场公平竞争，实现反垄断法预防和制止垄断行为的立法目的，具有示范意义。 |
| 2. Case involving a dispute over the hardcore cartel agreement, "de-energized tap-changer patent infringement settlement agreement" | | 2.“无励磁开关专利侵权和解协议”横向垄断协议纠纷案 |
| —Anti-monopoly review of abuse of intellectual property rights | | --滥用知识产权行为的反垄断审查 |
| [Case Number] | | 【案号】 |
| No. 1298 [2021] Final, Civil, IP, SPC of the Supreme People's Court (Shanghai Huaming Power Equipment Co., Ltd. v. Wuhan Taipu Transformer Switch Co., Ltd. (monopoly agreement dispute)) | | 最高人民法院（2021）最高法知民终1298号〔上海华明电力设备制造有限公司诉武汉泰普变压器开关有限公司垄断协议纠纷案〕 |
| [Basic Facts] | | 【基本案情】 |
| In 2015, Taipu Company sued Huaming Company for infringing its patent for invention "a de-energized tap-changer with shielding device." The two parties signed a "mediation agreement" (which was not confirmed by the court, and was a settlement agreement in essence), agreeing that Huaming Company might produce only specific types of de-energized tap-changers, and resell to its customers other types of de-energized tap-changers supplied only by Taipu Company, with the sales prices being determined based on the supply prices of Taipu Company; and that in the overseas market, Huaming Company acted as a market agent of Taipu Union Company, in which Taipu Company held shares, and was not allowed to produce or act as an agent for similar products of other companies, with sales prices being the same as the supply prices of Taipu Company. In 2019, Huaming Company filed a lawsuit with the court, arguing that the settlement agreement involved in the case was a monopoly agreement in violation the Anti-monopoly Law and thus should be determined to be invalid. The court of first instance held that the settlement agreement involved in the case was not a monopoly agreement, and entered a judgment to dismiss all claims of Huaming Company. Huaming Company filed an appeal. The Supreme People's Court held at second instance that if a patentee overstepped its exclusive rights and excluded or restricted competition by abusing its intellectual property rights, it was suspected of violating the Anti-Monopoly Law; that the settlement agreement involved in the case had no substantive relation with the protection scope of the patent involved in the case, and its substance was to actually pursue the effects of eliminating and restricting competition under the guise of exercise of patent, instead of protecting the patent, and was an abuse of patent; and that the settlement agreement involved in the case constituted a hardcore cartel agreement that divided sales markets, restricted the output and sales volume of goods, and fixed the prices of goods, and violated the mandatory provisions of the Anti-monopoly Law. The Supreme People's Court entered a final judgment, setting aside the first-instance judgment, confirming the invalidity of the settlement agreement involved in the case in its entirety. | | 2015年泰普公司起诉华明公司侵害其“一种带屏蔽装置的无励磁开关”发明专利权，双方于2016年1月签订“调解协议”（未经法院确认，实为和解协议），约定：华明公司仅能生产特定种类的无励磁分接开关，对其他种类的无励磁分接开关只能通过泰普公司供货转售给下游客户，且销售价格要根据泰普公司供货价格确定；在海外市场，华明公司为泰普公司持股的泰普联合公司作市场代理，不得自行生产或代理其他企业的同类产品，且销售价格与泰普公司的供货价格一致。2019年华明公司向法院提起诉讼，主张涉案和解协议属于垄断协议，违反反垄断法，应认定无效。一审法院认为，涉案和解协议不属于垄断协议，判决驳回华明公司全部诉讼请求。华明公司不服，提起上诉。最高人民法院二审认为，如果专利权人逾越其享有的专有权，滥用知识产权排除、限制竞争的，则涉嫌违反反垄断法。涉案和解协议与涉案专利权的保护范围缺乏实质关联性，其核心并不在于保护专利权，而是以行使专利权为掩护，实际上追求排除、限制竞争的效果，属于滥用专利权；涉案和解协议构成分割销售市场、限制商品生产和销售数量、固定商品价格的横向垄断协议，违反反垄断法强制性规定。最高人民法院终审判决，撤销一审判决，确认涉案和解协议全部无效。 |
| [Significance] | | 【典型意义】 |
| Patent is a legal monopoly right. The lawful exercise of patent by business operators is not restricted by the Anti-monopoly Law, but their abuse of patent to exclude or restrict competition is disallowed by the Anti-monopoly Law. This case specifies the standards for analyzing and judging hardcore cartel agreements involving patent licensing, provides guidance on examining whether the mediation or settlement agreements reached by parties to patent infringement cases violate the Anti-monopoly Law, and is of positive significance for regulating the lawful exercise of rights by patentees and raising the public awareness of the rule of law on anti-monopoly. | | 专利权是一种合法垄断权，经营者合法行使专利权的行为不受反垄断法限制，但是经营者滥用专利权排除、限制竞争的行为则受到反垄断法规制。该案明确了涉及专利权许可的横向垄断协议的分析判断标准，就审查专利侵权案件当事人达成的调解或和解协议是否违反反垄断法作出了指引，对于规范专利权人合法行使权利、提高全社会的反垄断法治意识具有积极意义。 |
| 3. Case involving a "kindergarten" hardcore cartel agreement dispute | | 3.“幼儿园”横向垄断协议纠纷案 |
| —Determination of hardcore cartel participants' claim for compensation for breach of contract | | --横向垄断协议实施者违约赔偿请求权的认定 |
| [Case Number] | | 【案号】 |
| No. 2253 [2021] Final, Civil, IP, SPC of the Supreme People's Court (Jinxian County Wenzhen Town Art Kindergarten v. Jinxian County Wenzhen Town Liujiayi Kindergarten, Wan Zhen, Jinxian County Wenzhen Town Aile Kindergarten, Jinxian County Wenzhen Town Jinbeibei Kindergarten, and Jinxian County Wenzhen Town Caiyi Kindergarten (hardcore cartel agreement dispute)) | | 最高人民法院（2021）最高法知民终2253号〔进贤县温圳镇艺术幼儿园诉进贤县温圳镇六佳一幼儿园、万珍、进贤县温圳镇艾乐幼儿园、进贤县温圳镇金贝贝幼儿园、进贤县温圳镇才艺幼儿园横向垄断协议纠纷案〕 |
| [Basic Facts] | | 【基本案情】 |
| Art Kindergarten contended that it signed a cooperation agreement with other four kindergartens including Liujiayi Kindergarten, agreeing that all parties to the cooperation would jointly settle revenue and expenses and share profits equally and that the other four kindergartens including Liujiayi Kindergarten would compensate Art Kindergarten for reduction in persons of Art Kindergarten and its not opening kindergartens in specific areas. As the other four kindergartens failed to pay compensation as agreed, Art Kindergarten sued in the Intermediate People's Court of Nanchang City, Jiangxi Province, requesting a judgment that Liujiayi Kindergarten should pay the compensation and be liable for breach of contract. The court of first instance held that the five kindergartens involved in the case signed the agreement involved in the case, confirmed fee rates, and divided the local kindergarten market and that those acts were obviously intended to eliminate and restrict competition, and produced such effects within a certain period of time. As the agreement involved in the case should be determined to be invalid because of a violation of the prohibitive provisions of the Anti-monopoly Law, the court of first instance entered a judgment, dismissing the claim of Art Kindergarten. Art Kindergarten filed an appeal. The Supreme People's Court held at second instance that it was not improper for the court of first instance to determine that the agreement involved in the case constituted a hardcore cartel agreement on the grounds that such agreement, which explicitly stipulated clauses on fixing and increasing prices and the withdrawal of individual business operators from the relevant market, among others, not only conspicuously had the purpose of eliminating or restricting competition, but also actually produced such effects; and that Art Kindergarten's request for economic compensation and liquidated damages for the agreement period from Liujiayi Kindergarten and Wan Zhen was in essence a request for a share in monopolistic benefits, which the people's courts would not uphold. The Supreme People's Court entered a final judgment, dismissing the appeal and affirming the original judgment. | | 艺术幼儿园主张其与六佳一幼儿园等其他四家幼儿园共同签订合作协议，约定合作各方对收入和开支共同结算并平均分配利润，六佳一幼儿园等四家幼儿园对艺术幼儿园的人数减少和其不在特定区域开设幼儿园进行补偿。后因该四家幼儿园未按照约定支付补偿款，故艺术幼儿园起诉至江西省南昌市中级人民法院，请求判令六佳一幼儿园支付补偿款并承担违约责任。一审法院认为，涉案五家幼儿园签订涉案协议并确认了收费标准，划分了当地幼儿园市场，该行为明显具有排除、限制竞争的目的，且在特定时间内实现了排除、限制竞争的效果。涉案协议因违反反垄断法的禁止性规定，应当认定无效，故判决驳回艺术幼儿园的诉讼请求。艺术幼儿园不服，提起上诉。最高人民法院二审认为，涉案协议明确约定了固定和上涨价格、个别经营者退出相关市场等内容，不仅明显具有排除、限制竞争的目的，而且也实际产生了排除、限制竞争的效果，一审法院认定涉案协议构成横向垄断协议并无不当。艺术幼儿园请求六佳一幼儿园和万珍向其支付协议期间的经济补偿金及违约金，实质上是要求瓜分垄断利益，人民法院对此不予支持。最高人民法院终审判决，驳回上诉，维持原判。 |
| [Significance] | | 【典型意义】 |
| Monopolistic acts restrict fair competition and harm the interests of consumers, and the resulting income shall not be protected by law. This case clarifies that the legislative purpose of the Anti-monopoly Law is to provide legal relief for the victims of monopolistic conduct, instead of providing opportunities for business operators which commit monopolistic conduct to make improper profits. When the implementers of a hardcore cartel agreement claim damages based on the agreement, they essentially request a share in monopolistic benefits. The people's courts shall not uphold such request. This case is of great significance for cracking down on hardcore cartels, maintaining the fair competition order, and guiding the sound development of the preschool education industry. | | 垄断行为限制公平竞争，损害广大消费者利益，由此而产生的收益不应得到法律保护。本案阐明了反垄断法的立法目的在于为垄断行为的受害人提供法律救济，而不为实施垄断行为的经营者提供不当获利的机会。横向垄断协议实施者根据该协议主张损害赔偿，实质上是要求瓜分垄断利益，人民法院对该类请求不予支持。本案对于打击横向垄断行为、维护公平竞争秩序、引导幼教行业良性发展具有重要意义。 |
| 4. Case involving an invention patent infringement with respect to the "reverse payment agreement related to the patent for Saxagliptin Tablets" | | 4.“涉沙格列汀片剂药品专利反向支付协议”发明专利侵权纠纷案 |
| —Anti-monopoly review in a non-monopoly case | | --非垄断案由案件中的反垄断审查 |
| [Case Number] | | 【案号】 |
| No. 388 [2021] Final, Civil, IP, SPC of the Supreme People's Court (AstraZeneca plc. v. Jiangsu Aosaikang Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. (invention patent infringement dispute)) | | 最高人民法院（2021）最高法知民终388号〔阿斯利康有限公司诉江苏奥赛康药业有限公司侵害发明专利权纠纷案〕 |
| [Basic Facts] | | 【基本案情】 |
| AstraZeneca of Sweden is the successor to a patent for an invention for the treatment of diabetes with the patent number 01806315.2 and the name "cyclopropyl-fused pyrrolidine-based inhibitors of dipeptidyl iv, processes for their preparation, and their use," and the patented product is Saxagliptin Tablets. In order to prevent challenge to the validity of the patent, the original holder of the patent involved in the case reached a Settlement Agreement with the invalidation petitioner (an affiliate of Aosaikang), agreeing that if the petitioner withdrew the request for invalidation of the patent involved in the case, the petitioner and its affiliate might be licensed to exploit the patent involved in the case more than five years before the expiration of the protection period of the patent involved in the case. The petitioner withdrew the request for invalidation as agreed, and its affiliate, Aosaikang, exploited the patent involved in the case. AstraZeneca sued in the court, claiming that Aosaikang infringed the patent involved in the case. The court of first instance entered a judgment to dismiss all the claims of AstraZeneca, holding that Aosaikang had the right to exploit the patent involved in the case in accordance with the Settlement Agreement. AstraZeneca filed an appeal, and later moved to withdraw the appeal on the grounds that the two parties reached a settlement during the trial at second instance. The Supreme People's Court held at second instance that the motion for withdrawal of the appeal should be examined in accordance with the law; that the Settlement Agreement involved in the case appeared to be the so-called reverse payment agreement involving a pharmaceutical patent; and that the people's court should generally examine whether it violated the Anti-monopoly Law before making a decision on whether to grant the withdrawal of the appeal. After examination, taking into account the specific circumstances such as the expiration of the protection period of the patent involved in the case, the Supreme People's Court made a final ruling to grant the withdrawal of the appeal. | | 瑞典阿斯利康公司为一种用于治疗糖尿病的专利号为01806315.2、名称为“基于环丙基稠合的吡咯烷二肽基肽酶IV抑制剂、它们的制备方法及用途”的发明专利的继受权利人，专利产品为沙格列汀片。涉案专利原权利人为使专利权效力免受挑战，曾与无效宣告请求人（奥赛康公司关联方）达成《和解协议》，约定：请求人撤回针对涉案专利的无效宣告请求，请求人及其关联方即可获许在涉案专利权保护期限届满前5年多实施涉案专利。后请求人依约撤回无效宣告请求，并由其关联方奥赛康公司实施涉案专利。之后，阿斯利康公司诉至法院，主张奥赛康公司侵害涉案专利权。一审法院认为，奥赛康公司方有权依据涉案《和解协议》实施涉案专利，故判决驳回阿斯利康公司全部诉讼请求。阿斯利康公司不服，提起上诉，后又以双方于二审审理期间达成和解为由申请撤回上诉。最高人民法院二审认为，对撤回上诉申请应当依法进行审查，涉案《和解协议》符合所谓的“药品专利反向支付协议”外观，人民法院一般应当对其是否违反反垄断法进行一定程度的审查，之后再决定是否准许撤回上诉。经审查，综合考虑涉案专利权保护期限已经届满等具体情况，最高人民法院终审裁定，准予撤回上诉。 |
| [Significance] | | 【典型意义】 |
| A reverse payment agreement involving a pharmaceutical patent is an agreement under which a pharmaceutical patent holder undertakes to give the generic drug applicant direct or indirect benefit compensation (including disguised compensation such as reducing the detriment of the generic drug applicant), while the generic drug applicant undertakes not to challenge the validity of the pharmaceutical patent or undertakes to delay entry into the market related to the patented medicinal product. This case has been the first case to date in which Chinese courts conducted an anti-monopoly review of a reverse payment agreement involving a pharmaceutical patent. Although the court handling this case only conducted a preliminary anti-monopoly review of a motion for withdrawal of appeal, and did not explicitly determine whether the settlement agreement involved in the case violated the Anti-monopoly Law in view of the specific circumstances of the case, the adjudication on this case emphasizes the necessity for timely and appropriate anti-monopoly review of an agreement on which the parties based their contentions in the trial of a non-monopoly case, expressly states the limits of and basic pathway to the review of reverse payment agreements involving pharmaceutical patents, and is of positive significance for enhancing enterprises' awareness of anti-monopoly compliance, regulating the order of competition in the pharmaceutical market, and guiding the people's courts in strengthening anti-monopoly review. | | “药品专利反向支付协议”是药品专利权利人承诺给予仿制药申请人直接或者间接的利益补偿（包括减少仿制药申请人不利益等变相补偿），仿制药申请人承诺不挑战该药品相关专利权的有效性或者延迟进入该专利药品相关市场的协议。本案是目前中国法院首起对“药品专利反向支付协议”作出反垄断审查的案件，虽然只是针对撤回上诉申请所作的反垄断初步审查，而且最终鉴于案件具体情况也未明确定性涉案和解协议是否违反反垄断法，但该案裁判强调了在非垄断案由案件审理中对当事人据以提出主张的协议适时适度进行反垄断审查的必要性，指明了对涉及“药品专利反向支付协议”的审查限度和基本路径，对于提升企业的反垄断合规意识、规范药品市场竞争秩序、指引人民法院加强反垄断审查具有积极意义。 |
| 5. Case involving a "Yan'an concrete enterprise" contract dispute and a hardcore cartel agreement dispute | | 5.“延安混凝土企业”合同纠纷及横向垄断协议纠纷案 |
| —Calculation of damages arising from a hardcore cartel agreement | | --横向垄断协议的损害赔偿计算 |
| [Case Number] | | 【案号】 |
| No. 509 [2020] First, Civil, IP, 01, Shaanxi of the Intermediate People's Court of Xi'an City, Shaanxi Province (Yan'an Jiacheng Concrete Co., Ltd. v. Fujian Sanjian Engineering Co., Ltd. (contract dispute and hardcore cartel agreement dispute)) | | 陕西省西安市中级人民法院（2020）陕01知民初509号〔延安市嘉诚混凝土有限公司与福建三建工程有限公司合同纠纷及横向垄断协议纠纷案〕 |
| [Basic Facts] | | 【基本案情】 |
| Jiacheng Company began supplying concrete to Fujian Sanjian Company in March 2018. Ten concrete companies in Baota District, Yan'an City, Shaanxi Province, including Jiacheng Company, jointly stated that as from July 1, 2018, the prices of all grades of concrete would be increased by 60 yuan per cubic meter. On July 13, 2018, Jiacheng Company and Fujian Sanjian Company reached an oral agreement, agreeing to increase the unit prices of concrete by 45 yuan per cubic meter. The Shaanxi Provincial Administration for Industry and Commerce received a report on the alleged monopoly of Jiacheng Company, among others, in the same month, and launched an investigation in August 2018, but Jiacheng Company neither adjusted the unit prices of concrete nor informed Fujian Sanjian Company of the relevant information. In April 2019, Fujian Sanjian Company and Jiacheng Company signed a supplementary agreement to further increase the prices of concrete of the same grades by 25 yuan per cubic meter. In August 2019, the Shaanxi Provincial Administration for Market Regulation made a penalty decision with respect to the conclusion and implementation of a monopoly agreement by Jiacheng Company and nine other concrete companies. Jiacheng Company completed the concrete supply to Fujian Sanjian Company at the end of September 2019, and the two parties organized settlement in October. When Jiacheng Company claimed the arrears of purchase money of concrete from Fujian Sanjian Company, Fujian Sanjian Company acquired knowledge that Jiacheng Company received penalties from administrative authorities for its monopolistic conduct, and thus filed a lawsuit with the Intermediate People's Court of Xi'an City, Shaanxi Province, requesting compensation for corresponding loss from Jiacheng Company. The court held that the formal freedom of contract between the parties should not become a legal cloak for the illegal acts by the party committing monopolistic conduct; that business operators should bear civil liability for damage to counterparties in transactions caused by reaching a price increase agreement; and that for commodities that are difficult to separate themselves from the local supply market or have high demand for technical support, damages arising from a hardcore cartel agreement shall be the difference between the price fixed in the monopoly agreement and the product price previously agreed with counterparties by free market competition. The court thus entered a judgment that Fujian Sanjian Company should pay about 6.02 million yuan in arrears of contract price to Jiacheng Company in addition to liquidated damages and that Jiacheng Company should pay Fujian Sanjian Company about 1.43 million yuan in damages arising from the implementation of the hardcore cartel agreement. After the first-instance judgment was pronounced, neither party appealed. | | 嘉诚公司自2018年3月开始向福建三建公司供应混凝土。包含嘉诚公司在内的陕西省延安市宝塔区10家混凝土企业联合声明，自2018年7月1日开始，所有标号的混凝土每立方米在原价基础上上浮60元。2018年7月13日，嘉诚公司与福建三建公司达成口头协议，约定将混凝土每立方米单价全面上涨45元。同月，原陕西省工商局接到嘉诚公司等涉嫌垄断的举报，于2018年8月启动调查，但嘉诚公司对混凝土供应单价并未作出调整，亦未向福建三建公司告知相关情况。自2019年4月开始，福建三建公司和嘉诚公司通过签订补充协议，对同标号混凝土在先前价格基础上每立方米再次上涨25元。2019年8月，陕西省市场监管局对嘉诚公司和其他9家混凝土企业达成并实施垄断协议作出处罚决定。2019年9月底，嘉诚公司对福建三建公司的混凝土供应结束，10月双方组织结算。在嘉诚公司向福建三建公司主张欠付混凝土货款时，福建三建公司得知嘉诚公司因实施垄断行为被行政机关处罚，遂向陕西省西安市中级人民法院起诉，要求嘉诚公司赔偿相应损失。该院审理认为，当事人之间因形式上的契约自由不能成为实施垄断行为一方违法行为的合法外衣。经营者达成涨价协议对交易相对人造成损害的，应当承担相应的民事责任。关于横向垄断协议损害赔偿，对难以脱离当地供应市场或对技术支持需求较高的商品，应以垄断协议所固定价格与此前在自由市场竞争中与交易相对人所约定产品价格的差值进行计算。故判决福建三建公司向嘉诚公司支付欠付合同款约602万元并支付违约金；嘉诚公司向福建三建公司支付因实施横向垄断协议所造成的损害赔偿金约143万元。一审宣判后，双方均未上诉。 |
| ．．．．．． | | 【典型意义】 |
| | 本案是横向垄断协议的受害人在反垄断行政执法机关认定被诉垄断行为违法并作出行政处罚后提起民事损害赔偿诉讼的案件。反垄断民事诉讼是垄断行为受害人获得损害赔偿的基本途径，是反垄断法实施的重要方式。本案基于经济学原理和一般市场交易规律，对不同交易形态特征下的损害赔偿请求数额认定和计算路径进行了有益探索。本案同时也生动展现了反垄断行政执法与司法的有效衔接，对于形成反垄断法执法和司法合力、切实提升反垄断法实施效果具有典型意义。 |
| | ．．．．．． |
Dear visitor,you are attempting to view a subscription-based section of lawinfochina.com. If you are already a subscriber, please login to enjoy access to our databases . If you are not a subscriber, please subscribe . Should you have any questions, please contact us at:
+86 (10) 8268-9699 or +86 (10) 8266-8266 (ext. 153)
Mobile: +86 133-1157-0713
Fax: +86 (10) 8266-8268
database@chinalawinfo.com
| |
您好：您现在要进入的是北大法律英文网会员专区，如您是我们英文用户可直接 登录，进入会员专区查询您所需要的信息；如您还不是我们 的英文用户，请注册并交纳相应费用成为我们的英文会员 。如有问题请来电咨询；
Tel: +86 (10) 82689699, +86 (10) 82668266 ext. 153
Mobile: +86 13311570713
Fax: +86 (10) 82668268
E-mail: database@chinalawinfo.com
|
| | | |
| | | |