CAJ | 학술논문

公平、合理且无歧视许可承诺（FRAND许可承诺）已经成为技术标准制定组织所采用的一般政策。知识产权人一旦做出FRAND许可承诺，即应该受到相应的法律约束，同时，违反FRAND承诺应该承担相应的法律后果。对此，提出五种理论。相比之下，侵权行为论和垄断行为论最弱，缔约过失论、不正当竞争行为论和权利滥用论则更为成熟。具体来说，如果违反FRAND许可承诺，知识产权人可因违反《民法通则》第4条而构成滥用权利，致使相关专利权失效；技术标准实施人可依照缔约过失论或不正当竞争行为论，分别援引《合同法》第42条或《反不正当竞争法》第2条，请求承诺违反人赔偿损失，包括因FRAND许可承诺违法使其遭受的纯粹经济损失。
공평、합리차무기시허가승낙（FRAND허가승낙）이경성위기술표준제정조직소채용적일반정책。지식산권인일단주출FRAND허가승낙，즉응해수도상응적법률약속，동시，위반FRAND승낙응해승담상응적법률후과。대차，제출오충이론。상비지하，침권행위론화롱단행위론최약，체약과실론、불정당경쟁행위론화권리람용론칙경위성숙。구체래설，여과위반FRAND허가승낙，지식산권인가인위반《민법통칙》제4조이구성람용권리，치사상관전리권실효；기술표준실시인가의조체약과실론혹불정당경쟁행위론，분별원인《합동법》제42조혹《반불정당경쟁법》제2조，청구승낙위반인배상손실，포괄인FRAND허가승낙위법사기조수적순수경제손실。
Fair, Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory (FRAND) commitment has now been part of the prevalent policy adopted by technical standard setting organizations. The holder of Intellectual property right is bound to legal restriction and liability once he made such commitment. This article puts forward ifve theories, it is dififcult to prove breach of FRAND commitment through torts under Chinese Tort Liability Law or abuse of dominant position under Chinese Anti-monopoly Law, however, it is easier to establish the breach through culpa in contrahendo, unfair competition act, or abuse of rights. Specifically, the IPR holders who breach FRAND commitment can be sued for abused of rights invoked by Article 4 General Principles of Civil Law, resulting in failure of the relevant patents. In addition, they can be sued for culpa in contrahendo invoked by Article 42 Contract Law or for unfair competition act invoked by Article 2 Anti-unfair Competition Law. And can be claimed to compensate, including pure economic loss suffered by the interested parties due to the breach of FRAND commitment.