لیسانس‌های اجباری در پرتو نظریه سوءاستفاده از حق اختراع: مطالعه تطبیقی ایران و آمریکا
محورهای موضوعی : حقوق مالکیتمرتضی سعیدقادری 1 , امین میرزمانی 2
1 - پژوهشگر مقطع دکتری حقوق خصوصی، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی واحد ورامین، پیشوا، ایران
2 - پژوهشگر مقطع دکتری حقوق خصوصی، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی واحد ورامین، پیشوا، ایران
کلید واژه: نظریه سوء استفاده از اختراع, لیسانس اجباری, حقوق رقابت, حق اختراع, سوء استفاده از حق.,
چکیده مقاله :
در چشم‌انداز پیچیده عصر نوآوری، انحصار بی‌رویه حقوق اختراع می‌تواند مانعی جدی بر سر راه رقابت سالم و دسترسی عادلانه به فناوری‌ها ایجاد کند، از این رو این پژوهش با روش تحلیل تطبیقی و بررسی رویه‌های قضایی به تبیین نظریه «سوءاستفاده از حق اختراع» در حقوق ایالات متحده و سازوکار «لیسانس اجباری» در معاهده تریپس و تطبیق آن با ظرفیت‌های قانونی ایران پرداخته است. یافته‌های تحقیق نشان داد که در نظام آمریکایی ایجاد امکان تعلیق موقت اجرای حق اختراع پس از اثبات سوءاستفاده، ضمن بازدارندگی مؤثر، امکان بازگرداندن حقوق دارنده اختراع را پس از رفع تخلف فراهم می‌سازد و سازوکار لیسانس اجباری بین‌المللی با الزام به مذاکره پیشین، پرداخت جبران خسارت منصفانه و محدودیت در مدت و قلمرو بهره‌برداری، کنترل مناسبی بر امتناع ناعادلانه از صدور مجوز ایجاد می‌کند. بررسی مقررات ایران نیز حکایت از پراکندگی اندک ابزارهایی مانند اعطای مجوز اجباری بدون پیش‌بینی تعلیق موقت یا چارچوب نظری منسجم دارد که کارایی لازم را برای پیشگیری و جبران سوءاستفاده ندارد؛ بر این اساس، پیشنهاد می‌شود با افزودن مقرره‌ای مستقل برای مقابله با سوءاستفاده از حق اختراع، پیش‌بینی امکان تعلیق موقت اجرای حقوق اختراع و تدوین دستورالعمل‌های دادرسی مرتبط، زمینه هماهنگی با استانداردهای بین‌المللی و تقویت توازن میان انحصار و رقابت در نظام حقوقی ایران فراهم آید.
In the complex landscape of modern innovation, excessive and unchecked patent monopolies can become serious barriers to healthy competition and equitable access to technology. Accordingly, this research—using a comparative analytical method and examining judicial precedents—explores the doctrine of patent misuse in U.S. law, the mechanism of compulsory licensing under the TRIPS Agreement, and their compatibility with Iran’s legal framework.The findings indicate that in the U.S. system, the possibility of temporarily suspending the enforcement of patent rights after establishing misuse serves as both an effective deterrent and a flexible remedy, enabling restoration of the patentee’s rights once the violation has been cured. Meanwhile, the international compulsory licensing mechanism, through requirements such as prior negotiation, payment of fair compensation, and limitations on duration and scope of use, provides an appropriate control mechanism against unjustified refusals to grant licenses. A review of Iranian regulations, however, reveals a limited and fragmented set of tools—such as compulsory licensing—lacking provisions for temporary suspension of rights or a coherent theoretical structure. As a result, the Iranian framework does not provide sufficient efficiency for preventing or remedying misuse. Therefore, it is recommended that an independent legal provision addressing patent misuse be introduced, along with recognition of temporary suspension of patent enforcement and formulation of relevant judicial guidelines. Such reforms would help align Iran’s legal system with international standards and strengthen the balance between monopoly and competition.
رهبری، ابراهیم و سید محمد امین حسینی، «تاملی در نظیره سوءاستفاده از حق اختراع در نظام حقوقی ایران و آمریکا»، دو فصل نامه حقوق تطبیقی، سال پانزدهم، شمارۀ2، صص 147-168، مقاله پژوهشی(1398)
رهبری، ابراهیم و وحید حسنی سنگانی، «حقوق رقابت در عرصۀ مالکیت‌های فکری»، سازمان مطالعه و تدوین کتب علوم انسانی دانشگاه‌ها(سمت)،زمستان 1398
حسینی، سید محمد امین(1394)، نظریۀ ممنوعیت سوءاستفاده از حق اختراع، پایان نامۀ رشتۀ حقوق مالکیت فکری، دانشکدۀ حقوق دانشگاه شهید بهشتی، به راهنمایی میرقاسم جعفرزاده
کیاکجوری، غزاله(1395)، تاثیر موازین حقوق رقابت بر رشد نوآوری و توسعۀ فناوری، پایان نامۀ رشتۀ حقوق مالکیت فکری، دانشکدۀ حقوق شهید بهشتی، به راهنمایی ابراهیم رهبری
Graeme B. Dinwoodie, Mark D. Janis, TRADEMARKS AND UNFAIR COMPETITION LAW AND POLICY, fifth Edition,2023, Wolters Kluwer.
Kovacic, W. E., & Shapiro, C. (2023). Antitrust Law and Economics. Harvard University Press. (pp. 210-225).
Leslie, Christopher R, Antitrust law and intellectual property rights: cases and materials, Oxford University Press, UK. (2011).
Merges, R. P., & Duffy, J. F. (2023). Patent Law and Policy: Cases and Materials. 8th ed., Carolina Academic Press. (pp. 610-620).
Hovenkamp, Herbert, Innovation and competition policy, Available at: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1937207(SSRN).
Articles
Cheung, W., & Pietsch, I. (2025). Considering the Status of the U.S. Doctrine of Patent Misuse. Covington & Burling LLP.
Golden, J. M. (2024). "Reconsidering Patent Misuse," Stanford Technology Law Review, vol. 27, pp. 330–358.
Kianzad, B. (2024). Compulsory Licensing as a Remedy Against Excessive Pricing of Life-Saving Medicines. South Centre Research Paper No. 197.
Knowledge Ecology International. (2023). Moderna Claims Compulsory License from U.S. Government to Use Third Party Patents in its Covid-19 Vaccine. KEI.
McClanahan, John Baker, Copyright Misuse As A Defense In An Infringement Action: Copyright Misuse As A Defense In An Infringement Action,Available at: https://scholarlycommons.law.wlu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1857&context=wlulr
Precision Instrument Mfg. Co. v. Automotive Maintenance Machinery Co., 324 U.S. 806 (1945).
Ouellette, L.L., & Sampat, B.N. (2024). Using Bayh-Dole Act March-In Rights to Lower US Drug Prices. JAMA Health Forum, 5(11): e243775.
John Baker McClanahan, ” Copyright Misuse As A Defense In An Infringement Action: Copyright Misuse As A Defense In An Infringement Action”, , Available at: https://scholarlycommons.law.wlu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1857&context=wlulr
Syam, N. (2024). SouthViews No. 258: Licensing and Government Use of Patents. South Centre.
Casse
Brulotte v. Thys Co., 379 U.S. 29 (1964), Case available at: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/379/29.
Therasense, Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson and Co., 649 F.3d 1276 (Fed. Cir. 2011). (pp. 1280-1287), case available at: https://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/09-1008.pdf.
THERASENSE V BECTON, No. 08-1511 (Fed. Cir. 2009), Available at: https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/cafc/08-1511/08-1511o-2011-03-27.html
Precision Instrument Mfg. Co. v. Automotive Co., 324 U.S. 806 (1945), Avaiabale at: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/324/806/.
Hovenkamp, Herbert, Innovation and competition policy, Available at: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1937207(SSRN)
Lasercomb America, Inc. V. ReynoldsLasercomb America, Inc. V. Reynold, case available at: https://casetext.com/case/lasercomb-america-inc-v-reynolds;
Motion Picture Patents Co. v. Universal Film Co., 243 U.S. 502 (1917); Case available at: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/243/502/
Morton Salt Co. v. G. S. Suppiger Co., 314 U.S. 488 (1942); Available at: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/314/488/
Kimble v. Marvel Entertainment, LLC, 576 U.S. 446 (2015); Available at: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/576/446/
35 U.S. Code § 271 - Infringement of patent.( (a) Except as otherwise provided in this title, whoever without authority makes, uses, offers to sell, or sells any patented invention, within the United States or imports into the United States any patented invention during the term of the patent therefor, infringes the patent.)
Article 8: Principles:”…2. Appropriate measures, provided that they are consistent with the provisions of this Agreement, may be needed to prevent the abuse of intellectual property rights by right holders or the resort to practices which unreasonably restrain trade or adversely affect the international transfer of technology.”
Definition of March-in Rights (U.S. Law – Bayh–Dole Act, 35 U.S.C. § 203): March-in rights refer to the authority granted to the U.S. federal government to require the patent holder (typically a university or contractor who developed the invention with federal funding) to grant licenses to third parties, or for the government itself to grant such licenses, under certain conditions.
35 U.S. Code § 203 - March-in rights: “(a) With respect to any subject invention in which a small business firm or nonprofit organization has acquired title…, the Federal agency under whose funding agreement the subject invention was made shall have the right, in accordance with such procedures as are provided in regulations promulgated hereunder to require the contractor, an assignee or exclusive licensee of a subject invention to grant a nonexclusive, partially exclusive, or exclusive license in any field of use to a responsible applicant or applicants, …, and if the contractor, assignee, or exclusive licensee refuses such request, to grant such a license itself,….”
Text of Article 31(f) – TRIPS:”…(f) any such use shall be authorized predominantly for the supply of the domestic market of the Member authorizing such use..
References
Rahbari, Ebrahim, & Hosseini, Seyed Mohammad Amin. (2019). A Reflection on the Doctrine of Patent Misuse in Iranian and U.S. Legal Systems. Comparative Law Journal, Vol. 15, No. 2, pp. 147–168. Research Article. [in Persian]
Rahbari, Ebrahim, & Vahid Hassani Sangani. (2019). Competition Law in the Realm of Intellectual Property Rights. SAMT (Organization for Researching and Composing University Textbooks). [in Persian]
Hosseini, Seyed Mohammad Amin. (2015). The Doctrine of Patent Misuse. Master’s Thesis in Intellectual Property Law, Faculty of Law, Shahid Beheshti University. [in Persian]
KiaKajouri, Ghazaleh. (2016). Impact of Competition Law Standards on Innovation and Technological Development. Master’s Thesis in Intellectual Property Law, Faculty of Law, Shahid Beheshti University. [in Persian]
Dinwoodie, Graeme B., & Janis, Mark D. (2023). Trademarks and Unfair Competition Law and Policy. 5th Edition, Wolters Kluwer.
Kovacic, W. E., & Shapiro, C. (2023). Antitrust Law and Economics. Harvard University Press, pp. 210–225.
Leslie, Christopher R. (2011). Antitrust Law and Intellectual Property Rights: Cases and Materials. Oxford University Press.
Merges, R. P., & Duffy, J. F. (2023). Patent Law and Policy: Cases and Materials, 8th ed. Carolina Academic Press, pp. 610–620.
Hovenkamp, Herbert. Innovation and Competition Policy. Available at SSRN: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1937207
Cheung, W., & Pietsch, I. (2025). Considering the Status of the U.S. Doctrine of Patent Misuse. Covington & Burling LLP.
Golden, J. M. (2024). “Reconsidering Patent Misuse,” Stanford Technology Law Review, Vol. 27, pp. 330–358.
Kianzad, B. (2024). Compulsory Licensing as a Remedy Against Excessive Pricing of Life-Saving Medicines. South Centre Research Paper No. 197.
Knowledge Ecology International (KEI). (2023). Moderna Claims Compulsory License from U.S. Government to Use Third-Party Patents in Its Covid-19 Vaccine.
McClanahan, John Baker. Copyright Misuse as a Defense in an Infringement Action. Available at: https://scholarlycommons.law.wlu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1857&context=wlulr
Precision Instrument Mfg. Co. v. Automotive Maintenance Machinery Co., 324 U.S. 806 (1945).
Ouellette, L. L., & Sampat, B. N. (2024). Using Bayh-Dole Act March-In Rights to Lower U.S. Drug Prices. JAMA Health Forum, 5(11): e243775.
Syam, N. (2024). SouthViews No. 258: Licensing and Government Use of Patents. South Centre.
Brulotte v. Thys Co., 379 U.S. 29 (1964). Case available at: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/379/29.
Therasense, Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson and Co., 649 F.3d 1276 (Fed. Cir. 2011), pp. 1280–1287. Case available at: https://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/09-1008.pdf
Therasense v. Becton, No. 08-1511 (Fed. Cir. 2009). Available at: https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/cafc/08-1511/08-1511o-2011-03-27.html
Precision Instrument Mfg. Co. v. Automotive Co., 324 U.S. 806 (1945). Available at: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/324/806/
Lasercomb America, Inc. v. Reynolds. Available at: https://casetext.com/case/lasercomb-america-inc-v-reynolds
Motion Picture Patents Co. v. Universal Film Co., 243 U.S. 502 (1917). Available at: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/243/502/
Morton Salt Co. v. G. S. Suppiger Co., 314 U.S. 488 (1942). Available at: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/314/488/
Kimble v. Marvel Entertainment, LLC, 576 U.S. 446 (2015). Available at: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/576/446/
35 U.S. Code § 271 – Infringement of Patent. [in English]
TRIPS Agreement, Article 8(2): Preventing the abuse of intellectual property rights.
Definition of March-in Rights (Bayh–Dole Act, 35 U.S.C. § 203).
35 U.S. Code § 203 – March-in Rights.
TRIPS Agreement Article 31(f) – Use predominantly for the domestic market.