|
B. 連結至授權
In meeting the second requirement, NPEs may attempt to
establish that many of their activities are licensing in nature.在滿足第二個要求時，NPE可試圖建立他們的許多活動都是授權的性質。 However, a 2011 Federal Trade Commission
(FTC) paper suggested that the ITC consider interpreting the domestic
industry requirement as not satisfied by “ex post licensing activity solely
focused on extracting rents from manufacturers based on products already on
the market”.然而，2011年美國聯邦貿易委員會（FTC）的報告建議ITC認為解釋本地產業的要求不因“事後授權活動只聚焦在根據市場上已有的產品從製造者收取租金”而滿足。FTC的立場是The IFC took the position that, based on its interpretation,
substantial investment in the exploitation of a patent through licensing
activities should encompass “ex ante licensing activities” that seeks
technology transfer and the creation of new products and not “ex post
licensing”.，基於其解釋，透過授權活動而在專利開發中的大量投資，應包括尋求技術轉移和創造新產品的“事前授權”，而不是“事後授權”。The Commission also differentiated between a “revenue-driven licensing
model targetingexisting production” and an “industry-xreating,
production-deriven licensing” model that “Congress meant to encourage.” The
Commission decided to give less weight to revenue-driven licensing activities.委員會也在“目標在現有生產的收益導向授權模式”和“國會意圖鼓勵”的“產業建立、生產導向授權”模式之間作出區別。委員會決定對於收益導向授權活動給予較小的權重。而且，As discussed above, moreover, an
NPE's patent litigation expenses do not automatically qualify as investments
in the exploitation of a patent through licensing.如上所述，NPE的專利訴訟費用不會自動成為透過授權的專利開發的投資。Thus, NPEs, with business models focused
primarily on licensing, may potentially be given less weight when attempting
to establish this nexus.因此，具有主要側重於授權的商業模式的NPE，試圖建立這種連結時，可能會潛在地被給予較少的權重。
C Nexus to the United StatesC.連結至美國
An NPE's geographically diverse patent portfolio may take it
difficult to establish a nexus between the asserted patent and the United
States.一個NPE的地理位置分散的專利組合可能使它難以建立系爭專利與美國之間的連結。Foreign activity surrounding a patent
portfolio, including licensing personnel located at foreign facilities and/or
involving foreign patents, may obscure the strength of the US nexues.圍繞專利組合的國外活動，包括位在國外設備及/或涉及外國專利的授權人員，可能模糊了美國聯結的強度。As such, NPEs likely should attempt to
demonstrate that certain licensing investments were not related to activities
occurring outside the United States.正因為如此， NPE可能應嘗試證明某些授權投資與發生在美國以外的活動是不相關的。
D. SubstantialityD.實質性
Whether an NPE's licensing investments will be considered
substantial may depend on the nature of the industry and the complainant's resources.NPE的授權投資是否將被視為實質的，取決於產業的性質和原告的資源。However, no bright-line benchmark is
available for NPEs.然而，NPE沒有明確的基準。Instead, NPEs should strive to
appropriately allocate licensing expenses to the asserted patent.相反的，NPE應力求適當分配授權花費至系爭專利。Once allocated, a comparison between those allocated
investments and the NPE's overall licensing investments may be considered, as
should comparing the NPE's allocated investments to those of the industry as
a whole.一旦分配，可能考慮那些已分配投資和NPE的整體授權投資之間的比較，有如應該將NPE已分配投資與產業的那些投資作為一個整體相比較。In other words, information
relating to the context of licensing activities may prove important.換言之，與授權活動的脈絡有關的資訊可能證明是重要的。
|