涉及知识产权的经营者集中（中英）

国务院反垄断委员会办公室于2017年3月23日发布了《关于滥用知识产权的反垄断指南》（征求意见稿）。其中对涉及知识产权的经营者集中进行了专章规定，体现了在涉及知识产权的经营者集中案件中，适用反垄断审查的一般原则和分析方法，同时考虑知识产权特殊性的执法思路。
《关于滥用知识产权的反垄断指南》从起草到本次征求意见稿的形成，经过三家主管机构的多年打磨，目前的版本相对成熟。因此，最终出台的指南保留有关涉及知识产权的经营者集中的内容的可能性较大。鉴于以上因素，征求意见稿有关涉及知识产权的经营者集中的内容（第四章）对企业并购的商业实践应具有重要指导意义。换言之，如企业并购满足反垄断申报条件且涉及知识产权问题，应依据个案情形考虑知识产权问题对于反垄断审查可能的影响。
首先，征求意见稿明确了知识产权的结构性变化将被视为经营者集中的一种情形及其判断标准。该结构性变化包括知识产权的转让和排他性许可。需注意的是，知识产权排他性许可通常仅在实际上产生与知识产权转让同样的效果，且该效果可持续一定期间的情况下，才可能被视为经营者集中。《最高人民法院关于审理技术合同纠纷案件适用法律若干问题的解释》规定的“独占实施许可”，在其持续一定期间的情况下，可能被视为经营者集中。
第二，依据征求意见稿，“如果涉及知识产权的安排是集中交易的实质性组成部分或者对交易目的的实现具有重要意义”，则主管机构在对该交易进行反垄断审查时，将在对交易竞争效果的实体分析中纳入对知识产权特点的考虑。在技术层面，这意味着反垄断审查的至少一个组成部分的核心将是特定的技术或覆盖该技术的知识产权，例如以技术或知识产权为基础界定相关市场，该市场可能为使用该技术生产的相关产品市场或者相关技术市场等；又如，在主管机构认定交易具有或可能具有《反垄断法》旨在禁止的排除、限制竞争影响的情况下，涉及知识产权的救济措施可能构成附加限制性条件的部分甚至是主要内容。相反，如知识产权不具有上述意义，则主管机构在进行反垄断审查时通常不会特别考虑知识产权问题。
第三，依据《反垄断法》和商务部出台的相关部门规章，如主管机构认定经营者集中具有或者可能具有排除、限制竞争效果，则有权附加限制性条件批准该集中。征求意见稿仍依据结构性和行为性的分类对涉及知识产权的限制性条件分别进行了规定。
知识产权剥离的通常形式为知识产权的转让。以知识产权转让为形式的结构性救济与传统的资产或业务剥离一样，需要符合有效、可行、及时等基本条件，同时具备效果的充分性，确保受让方愿意且能够利用被剥离的知识产权在市场上进行有效竞争。实践中，知识产权的独占实施许可，如持续一定期间，通常能够在该期间内达到与知识产权转让相同的效果。因此，依据交易的具体情况，独占实施许可也可作为一种形式的结构性救济，在执法实践中发挥作用。需要注意的是，独占实施许可如果附加了使用领域或地域等限制，则通常无法达到所需的结构性效果，很难作为结构性救济在经营者集中审查实践中得到适用。
关于涉及知识产权的行为性条件，征求意见稿中列举的行为性条件大部分为对以往附加限制性条件批准经营者集中的执法实践的总结。行为性条件受交易状况、所涉行业、相关市场的竞争条件等个案情况影响较大，很难通过列举的形式予以规定。因此，对于这部分规定，更宜侧重其指导意义。换句话说，申报人未来在个案中提出的行为性条件不一定只局限于指南列举的情形。即使符合个案情况的限制性条件不在指南列举之列，申报人只要认为该条件能够实质性解决主管机构关注的竞争问题，就应积极主动地与主管机构进行沟通和商谈。
征求意见稿经营者集中部分的整体内容思路清晰，具有较为深远的指导意义；同时，规定较为原则，适用空间较大。这与中国反垄断执法目前的阶段、经验及执法实践的需要是相吻合的。企业并购如果同时涉及中国的反垄断审查和知识产权问题，则征求意见稿体现的执法倾向和逻辑体系应成为战略层面的重要考虑因素。
Concentration of undertakings involving intellectual property
The office of the State Council’s Anti-Monopoly Commission issued the Anti-monopoly Guidelines on Abuse of Intellectual Property (Draft for Comment) on 23 March 2017. The draft document has a chapter dedicated to the concentration of undertakings involving intellectual property (IP), which embodies a law enforcement model of applying the general principles and analytical framework for anti-monopoly review of concentrations between undertakings and also takes into consideration the characteristics of IP where the concentrations under review involve IP.
The draft for comment was formulated after years of painstaking efforts by all three competition authorities in China. It is likely that the final version will retain the provisions on concentration of undertakings involving IP. The fourth chapter of the draft, which covers concentration of undertakings involving IP, will provide important guidance for commercial practices regarding corporate mergers and acquisitions (M&A). If a company’s proposed M&A involving IP satisfies the conditions for anti-monopoly notification in China, the company should take into account the possible impact of IP issues on the anti-monopoly review of the concentration.
First of all, the draft for comment clarifies that the structural change of IP must be regarded as a kind of concentration of undertakings and the standards for evaluation. Such structural changes include transfer and exclusive license of IP. It is noteworthy that, generally speaking, in case of exclusive license of IP, only when such exclusive license has the same effect as the transfer of IP for a certain period of time may it be regarded as a concentration of undertakings.
The exclusive license as stipulated in the Interpretation of Supreme People’s Court on Several Issues regarding the Application of Laws in Disputes over Technical Contracts may be considered as concentration of undertakings if it sustains for a certain period of time.
Second, according to the draft, “if an arrangement involving intellectual property constitutes a substantial part of a concentration transaction, and is significant to the purpose of the transaction”, the authority must consider the characteristics of IP in the substantive analysis on competitive effect during the anti-monopoly review of the transaction.
Technically, this means that at least the core of one part of the review will lie in a certain technology, or the IP covering such technology. For instance, the relevant market is defined based on a technology or the IP covering such technology, and such market may be the relevant market for the product produced using the technology or the relevant technology market.
Another example would be where the authority decides that the transaction under review has, or may have, the effect of excluding or restricting competition that should be prohibited under the Anti-Monopoly Law (AML), the remedy involving IP may constitute a part, or even the major part, of the restrictive conditions to be attached to the clearance decision. If IP is insignificant to a transaction, the authority will usually not particularly consider IP issues for the purpose of reviewing the transaction under the AML.
Third, according to the AML and the relevant regulations issued by the Ministry of Commerce, if the authority deems that a concentration of undertakings has, or may have, the effect of excluding or restricting competition, they should be authorized to clear the concentration with restrictive conditions. The draft for comment also sets respective provisions on structural and behavioural restrictive conditions involving IP.
The major form of divestiture of IP is transfer. Like the traditional divestiture of assets or businesses, structural remedy in the form of IP transfer should be effective, feasible and timely, so as to ensure that the transferee is willing and able to use the IP to compete effectively in the market.
In practice, the exclusive license of IP, if sustained for a certain period of time, can have the same effect as IP transfer within such period. Therefore, exclusive license can also be regarded as a form of structural remedy, which will play a role in law enforcement. It is noteworthy that if the exclusive license is attached with restrictions on the field and territory of use, it will usually fail to deliver an expected structural effect and can hardly be applied as a structural remedy in the anti-monopoly review of a concentration.
Most of the behavioural conditions involving IP listed in the draft for comment are summed up from the restrictive conditions applied in previous cases where the concentrations have been cleared with conditions. Behavioural conditions are subject to the influence of specific factors of individual cases – such as the specific circumstances of the concentration transaction, the industries involved, and the competitive conditions of the relevant markets – and can hardly be listed exhaustively. Therefore, the provisions on behavioural conditions are more of a guidance than an exhaustive list.
In other words, the behavioural conditions to be proposed by the notifying party will not necessarily be confined to those listed in the draft for comment. Under the specific circumstances of an individual case, if the notifying party deems that certain behavioural conditions will substantially resolve the competitive concern of the authority, such party should actively communicate and negotiate with the authority in this regard.
The chapter about concentration of undertakings involving IP in the draft for comment is clearly formulated and will be playing a guiding role in the long term. In the meantime, the relevant provisions are principled, and their application allows for flexibility, which is in line with the current stage, experience and requirements in terms of the enforcement of the AML in China. If a corporate M&A involving IP should be subject to anti-monopoly review, the law enforcement tendency and logic system embodied by the draft for comment should be an important factor to consider at the strategic level.