【中英文对照版】2023年人民法院反垄断和反不正当竞争典型案例.docx

《【中英文对照版】2023年人民法院反垄断和反不正当竞争典型案例.docx》由会员分享，可在线阅读，更多相关《【中英文对照版】2023年人民法院反垄断和反不正当竞争典型案例.docx（45页珍藏版）》请在课桌文档上搜索。

1、最高人民法院发布2023年人民法院反垄断和反不正当竞争典型案例ModelAnti-monopolyandAnti-unfairCompetitionCasesofthePeople,sCourtsfor2023PublishedbytheSupremePeople,sCourt制定机关：最高人民法院公布日期：2023.09.14施行日期：2023.09.14效力位阶：司法解释性质文件法规类别：反不正当竞争市场管理IssuingAuthority：SupremePeoplesCourtDateIssued：09-14-2023EffectiveDate:09-14-20231.evelofAut

2、hority：DocumentsofJudicialInterpretationNature最高人民法院发布2023年人民法 院反垄断和反不正当竞争典型案 例AreaofLaw：Anti-UnfairCompetitionMarketManagementModelAnti-monopolyandAnti-unfairCompetitionCasesofthePeople,sCourtsfor2023PublishedbytheSupremePeoplesCourt(September14,2023)(2023年9月140)目录1 .“枸地氯雷他定”原料药滥用 市场支配地位纠纷案【最高人民 法院

3、(2020)最高法知民终1140 号】一一妥善处理知识产权保护 与反垄断的关系2 .“基本殡葬服务”拒绝交易纠纷案【最高人民法院(2021)最TableofContents1. Caseinvolvingadisputeoverabusingadominantpositioninthemarketinrelationtotheactivepharmaceuticalingredient,desloratadinecitratedisodium(No.11402020,Final,Civil,IP,SPCoftheSupremePeoplesCourt)properlymanagingthere

4、lationshipbetweenprotectionofintellectualpropertyrightsandantimonopolyefforts2. Caseinvolvingadisputeoverrefusetodealinrelationtobasicfuneralservices1(No.242高法知民终242号】一一公用企 业拒绝交易行为的认定及法律责 任承担2021,Final,Civil,IP,SPCoftheSupremePeoplesCourt)determinationofapublicutilityenterpriserefusaltodealandlegall

5、iability3. “通用汽车”纵向垄断协议纠 纷案【最高人民法院（2020）最 高法知民终1137号】一一反垄断 后继民事诉讼中的举证责任分配 及赔偿责任认定3. CaseinvolvingaverticalagreementdisputeinrelationtoGeneralMotors(No.11372020,Final,Civil,IP,SPCoftheSupremePeople,sCourt)allocationoftheburdenofproofanddeterminationofliabilityforcompensationinacivilactionsubsequentto

6、ananti-monopolyaction4. “商校联营”反垄断行政处罚 案【最高人民法院（2023）最高 法知行终29号】一一实施横向垄 断协议的认定4. Caseofananti-monopolyadministrativepenaltyforaready-mixconcretejointventure(No.292023,Final,Administrative,IP,SPCoftheSupremePeoplesCourt)一determinationoftheimplementationofahorizontalagreement5.“巴曲酶”原料药拒绝交易纠 纷管辖权异议案【北京知

7、识产权 法院（ 2022 ）京73民初1136 号】一一拒绝交易纠纷的管辖确 定5. Caseofanobjectiontojurisdictionoveradisputeoverrefusaltodealintheactivepharmaceuticalingredient,Batroxobin(No.11362022,First,Civil,73,BeijingoftheBeijingFitellectualPropertyCourt)determinationofjurisdictionoveradisputeoverrefusaltodeal6.“西门子”仿冒混淆纠纷案 【最高人民法院

8、（2022）最高法 民终312号】一一仿冒混淆行为 的认定6. Caseinvolvingacounterfeit-basedconfusiondisputeinrelationtoSiemens(No.3122022,Final,Civil,SPCoftheSupremePeoplesCourt)determinationofcounterfeit-basedconfusion7 .“光激化学发光分析系统通用 液”技术秘密侵权纠纷案【最高 人民法院（2020）最高法知民终 1889号】一一构成技术秘密的技 术方案的认定7. Caseinvolvingaknow-howinfringement

9、disputeinrelationtothegeneral-purposereagentforLICA(No.18892020,Final,Civil,IP,SPCoftheSupremePeope,sCourt)一determinationoftechnicalsolutionsthatconstitutedknow-how8.“刷宝APP”不正当竞争纠纷 案【北京知识产权法院（2021） 京73民终IOll号】一一数据抓 取不正当竞争行为的认定8. CaseinvolvinganunfaircompetitiondisputeinrelationtotheappShuabao(No.101

10、12021,Final,Civil,73,BeijingoftheBeijingIntellectualPropertyCourt)determinationofdatacaptureasanactofunfaircompetition9.“代练帮APP”不正当竞争纠 纷案【上海市浦东新区人民法院（2022 ）沪 0115 民初 13290 号】一一网络游戏商业代练不正 当竞争行为的认定9. CaseinvolvinganunfaircompetitiondisputeinrelationtotheappPowerLevelingGroup(No.132902022,First,Civil,0

11、115,ShanghaiofthePrimaryPeoplesCourtofPudongNewAreaofShanghaiMunicipality)determinationofpowerlevelingasanactofunfaircompetition10. “刷单炒信”不正当竞争纠纷 案【广东省深圳市龙华区人民法 院（ 2022 ）粤 0309 民初 2585 号】一一利用虚假交易进行虚假 宣传行为的认定10. Caseinvolvinganunfaircompetitiondisputeinrelationtoplacingfalsepurchaseordersandmanipulat

12、ingcreditratings(No.25852022,First,Civil,0309,GuangdongofthePrimaryPeoplesCourtofLonghuaDistrictofShenzhenCity,GuangdongProvince)一determinationofusingfalsetransactionsforfalseadvertising1.“枸地氯雷他定”原料药滥用 市场支配地位纠纷案一一妥善处 理知识产权保护与反垄断的关系【案号】最高人民法院（2020） 最高法知民终1140号（扬子江药 业集团广州海瑞药业有限公司、 扬子江药业集团有限公司与合肥 医工医药股

13、份有限公司、合肥恩 瑞特药业有限公司、南京海辰药 业股份有限公司滥用市场支配地 位纠纷案）1. Caseinvolvingadisputeoverabusingadominantpositioninthemarketinrelationtotheactivepharmaceuticalingredient,desloratadinecitratedisodium一properlymanagingtherelationshipbetweenprotectionofintellectualpropertyrightsandanti-monopolyeffortsCaseNumberNo.11402

14、020,Final,Civil,IP,SPCoftheSupremePeoplesCourt(GuangzhouHairuiPharmaceuticalCo.,Ltd.ofYangtzeRiverPharmaceuticalGroupandYangtzeRiverPharmaceuticalGroupCo.,Ltd.v.HefeiIndustrialPharmaceuticalInstituteCo.,Ltd.,HefeiEnruitePharmaceuticalCo.,Ltd.,andNanjingHicinPharmaceuticalCo.,Ltd.(disputeoverabusinga

15、dominantpositioninthemarket)【基本案情】扬子江药业集团有BasicFactsYangtzeRiverPharmaceutical限公司及其子公司（合称扬子江 方）起诉称，其系商品名为“贝 雪”的抗过敏药物枸地氯雷他定 片剂生产商。合肥医工医药股份 有限公司拥有枸地氯雷他定有关 专利，长期以来，该公司及其子 公司、关联公司（合称医工方） 是生产“贝雪”所必需的枸地氯 雷他定原料药的唯一供应方。医 工方除生产枸地氯雷他定原料药 外，也生产枸地氯雷他定硬胶囊 剂。因而，医工方与扬子江方既 是涉案原料药的供需双方，也是 涉案制剂的竞争双方。医工方利 用其在涉案原料药市场的支

16、配地 位，限定扬子江方只能向其购买 涉案原料药，大幅提高涉案原料 药价格，以停止供应涉案原料药 为要挟，强迫扬子江方接受与涉 案原料药交易无关的其他商业安 排，给扬子江方造成的巨大损 失，构成反垄断法意义上的限定 交易、不公平高价、搭售、附加 不合理条件等滥用市场支配地位 行为，请求判令医工方停止滥用 市场支配地位行为，并赔偿扬子 江方损失及维权合理开支1亿 元。一审法院认为，医工方实施 了限定交易、不公平高价、附加 不合理交易条件等滥用市场支配 地位行为，判决医工方立即停止 上述行为并赔偿扬子江方6800余 万元。双方均不服，提起上诉。 医工方认为其在相关市场不具有 支配地位，未实施滥用市场

17、支配 地位行为，请求撤销原判并依法 驳回扬子江方的诉讼请求；扬子GroupCo.,Ltd.anditssubsidiary(collectively,YangtzeRiverPharmaceuticalGroup)sued,arguingthattheywerethemanufactureroftheallergymedicine,desloratadinecitratedisodiumtablets,underthebrandname,Beixue;thatHefeiIndustrialPharmaceuticalInstituteCo.,Ltd.,whichownedpatentondes

18、loratadinecitratedisodium,anditssubsidiaryandaffiliatedcompanies(collectively,HIP,)hadlongbeenthesolesupplieroftheactivepharmaceuticalingredient(API),desloratadinecitratedisodium5necessaryformanufacturingBeixue;thatasinadditiontotheAPI,HIPImanufactureddesloratadinecitratedisodiumcapsules,HIPIsupplie

19、dtheAPItoYangtzeRiverPharmaceuticalGroupandcompetedwithittomarketthepreparations;andthatasHIPIuseditsdominantpositioninthemarketintheAPItorestrictYangtzeRiverPharmaceuticalGroupsothatitcouldonlybuyitsAPI,significantlyraisetheAPIprice,andforceYangtzeRiverPharmaceuticalGrouptoacceptcommercialarrangeme

20、ntsunrelatedtodealingsintheAPIbythreateningtostopsupply,causinghugelossestoYangtzeRiverPharmaceuticalGroup,HIPIabuseditsdominantpositioninthemarketbyrestrictingdealings,unfairlyhighprices,tie-insales,andimposingunreasonableconditionsundertheAnti-monopolyLaw.YangtzeRiverPharmaceuticalGrouprequestedaj

21、udgmentthatHIPIstoptheabuseandpayYangtzeRiverPharmaceuticalGroup100millionyuanincompensationforitslossesandreasonableexpensesincurredforenforcingrights.ThecourtoffirstinstanceheldthatHIPIabuseditsdominantpositioninthemarketbyrestrictingdealings,unfairlyhighprices,andimposingunreasonabledealingcondit

22、ions,andrenderedajudgmentthatHIPIshouldimmediatelystoptheaboveactsandpayYangtzeRiverPharmaceuticalGroupmorethan68millionyuanincompensation.Bothpartiesappealed.HIPIstatedthatitneitherhadadominantpositionintherelevantmarketnorabusedsuchaposition;itrequestedthattheoriginaljudgmentbereversedandthatYangt

23、zeRiverPharmaceuticalGroupsclaimsbedismissed.YangtzeRiverPharmaceuticalGroupcontendedthatthecourtoffirstinstancehadawardedtoolowcompensation,andrequestedthatthejudgmentbemodifiedtoawardmorethan78millionyuanincompensation.江方认为一审判赔数额过低，请 求改判赔偿7800余万元。最高人民法院二审认为，医工方 在中国境内的枸地氯雷他定原料 药市场虽然具有市场支配地位， 但因其面临来

24、自下游第二代抗组 胺药制剂市场的较强间接竞争约 束，故其市场支配地位受到了一 定程度的削弱，且现有证据难以 证明其实施了滥用市场支配地位 行为。一是枸地氯雷他定落入医 工方专利权保护范围，医工方限 定扬子江方在一定期限和范围内 只能向其购买涉案专利原料药的 行为系对专利权的正当行使，由 此产生的市场封锁效果也并未超 出专利的法定排他效力范围，不 构成无正当理由限定交易的行 为。二是综合考虑涨价后的内部 收益率及价格与经济价值的匹配 度，涉案专利原料药初始价格系 促销性价格的可能性较大，后续 涨价较大可能系对促销性价格向 正常价格的合理调整，仅凭价格 涨幅明显高于成本涨幅尚不足以 认定不公平高价

25、行为。三是现有 证据尚不足以证明医工方存在将 案外项目与涉案专利原料药销售 作捆绑交易的明示或暗示，故难TheSupremePeople,sCourtheldatsecondinstancethatalthoughHIPIhadestablishedadominantpositionintheChinesemarketintheAPI,itfacedstrongindirectcompetitionfromthedownstreamsecond-generationantihistaminepreparationmarket,whichsomewhatundermineditsposition

26、andthatexistingevidencewasinsufficienttoproveitsabuseofthedominantposition.First,desloratadinecitratedisodiumwasundertheprotectionofHIPspatent.WhenHIPIrestrictedYangtzeRiverPharmaceuticalGroupsothatitcouldbuythepatentedAPIonlyfromHIPIwithinacertainperiodandscope,HIPIwaslegitimatelyexercisingitspaten

27、trights.Asthemarketforeclosureeffectproducedbytherestrictiondidnotexceedthelegalscopeofexclusivenessofthepatent,therestrictionwasnotarestrictionondealingswithoutanyjustifiablecause.Second,basedontheinternalrateofreturnafterthepriceincreaseandtheproportionalitybetweenpricesandeconomicvalue,theinitial

28、priceofthepatentedAPIwaslikelytobeapromotionalprice,andthepriceincreasewaslikelytobeareasonableadjustmentthatrestoredthepromotionalpricetoaregularprice.Apriceincreasethatwassignificantlyhigherthanthecostincreasealonewasinsufficienttodetermineanunfairlyhighprice.Third,asexistingevidencewasinsufficien

29、ttoprovethatHIPIexpressedorimpliedatyingsaleofanitemunrelatedtothecaseandthepatentedAPI,itwasimpossibletodeterminethattherewasimpositionofunreasonabledealingconditions.TheSupremePeoplesCourtrenderedafinaljudgment,reversingthefirst-instancejudgment,dismissingYangtzeRiverPharmaceuticalGroupsclaims.以认定

30、存在附加不合理交易条件 行为。最高人民法院终审判决， 撤销一审判决，改判驳回扬子江 方的诉讼请求。SignificanceThiscase,involvingamonopolyonanAPI,specifiesthatinassessinganintermediateinputundertakingsdominantpositioninthemarket,considerationshallbegiventotheindirectcompetitionfromadownstreammarket,therelevancyofthemarketforeclosureeffectofthealleg

31、edrestrictionondealingstotheexerciseofpatentrightsandmethodsforassessment,anddeterminationandregulationofactssuchasunfairlyhighpricesandimpositionofunreasonabletradingconditions.Thiscasemadeusefulexplorationsintoproperlymanagingtherelationshipbetweenpatentprotectionandanti-monopolyefforts,considerin

32、gencouraginginnovationandprotectingmarketcompetition,andassessingmonopolisticconductwiththeaidofeconomicanalysis,andissignificantforpromotingtheaccurateapplicationoftheAnti-monopolyLawandeffectivelysafeguardingfaircompetitioninthepharmaceuticalmarket.【典型意义】本案系涉原料药领 域垄断案件，明确了判断中间投 入品经营者市场支配地位时对来 自下游市

33、场的间接竞争约束的考 量、被诉限定交易行为的市场封 锁效果与专利权行使的关联性和 判断方法、不公平高价及附加不 合理交易条件等行为认定和规制 的基本考虑。该案在妥善处理专 利权保护与反垄断的关系，兼顾 鼓励创新与保护市场竞争，善用 经济分析辅助判断垄断行为等方 面作出了有益探索，对于促进反 垄断法的准确适用，有力维护药 品市场公平竞争具有积极意义。2 .“基本殡葬服务”拒绝交易纠 纷案一一公用企业拒绝交易行为 的认定及法律责任承担【案号】最高人民法院（2021） 最高法知民终242号（泉州鲤城 立升殡仪服务有限公司与泉州市 集英殡仪服务有限公司拒绝交易 纠纷案）2. Caseinvolving

34、adisputeoverrefusetodealinrelationtobasicfuneralservicesdeterminationofapublicutilityenterprise,refusaltodealandlegalliabilityCaseNumberNo.2422021,Final,Civil,IP,SPCoftheSupremePeople,sCourt(QuanzhouLichengLishengFuneralServiceCo.,Ltd.v.QuanzhouJiyingFuneralServiceCo.,Ltd.(disputeoverrefusaltodeal)B

35、asicFactsQuanzhouLichengLishengFuneralServiceCo.,Ltd.(LishengFuneralService)wasmainlyengagedinfuneralintermediaryservices.ItsuedQuanzhouJiyingFuneralServiceCo.,Ltd.(JiyingFuneralService),statingthatJiyingFuneralServicewasapublicutilityenterpriseprovidingcremationandbasicfuneralservicesandthatbecause

36、LishengFuneralServicecomplaintaboutJiyingFuneralService,sillegalcharges,JiyingFuneralServicerefusedLishengFuneralServicesapplicationforcremationonbehalfofcustomers,inviolationoftheAnti-monopolyLawsprohibitionadministrativemonopoly.LishengFuneralServicerequestedajudgmentthatJiyingFuneralServiceshould

37、resumetransactingrelatedbusinesswithLishengFuneralServiceandpayit80,000yuanincompensationforeconomiclosses.ThecourtoffirstinstanceheldthatLishengFuneralServicefailedtoprovethatJiyingFuneralServicewasanentityexercisingtheadministrativemonopolyundertheAnti-monopolyLaw,andrenderedajudgmenttodismissallt

38、heclaimsofLishengFuneralService.LishengFuneralServiceappealed,arguingthatJiyingFuneralServicesrefusaltodealwasanabuseofitsdominantmarketpositionprohibitedbytheAnti-monopolyLaw.【基本案情】泉州鲤城立升殡仪 服务有限公司（简称立升公司） 主要从事殡仪中介服务，其起诉 主张泉州市集英殡仪服务有限公 司（简称集英公司）系提供遗体 火化等基本殡葬服务的公用企 业，因立升公司举报集英公司违 规收费，集英公司拒绝立升公司 代死者亲属

39、申办遗体火化业务， 违反了反垄断法禁止行政性垄断 的规定，请求判令集英公司恢复 为立升公司办理相关业务并赔偿 经济损失8万元。一审法院认 为，立升公司未证明集英公司为 反垄断法所规制的行政垄断的实 施主体，判决驳回立升公司的全 部诉请。立升公司不服，提起上 诉，主张集英公司的拒绝行为属 于反垄断法所禁止的滥用市场支 配地位的拒绝交易行为。最高人民法院二审认为，集英公 司所处的基本殡葬服务市场属于 上游市场，立升公司提供的殡仪 中介服务系由基本殡葬服务衍生 而来，其所处的殡仪中介服务市 场属于下游市场。被诉垄断行为 发生于基本殡葬服务市场，同时 对殡仪中介服务市场产生影响。 集英公司作为在泉州市

40、中心市区TheSupremePeoplesCourtheldatsecondinstancethatthebasicfuneralservicemarketinwhichJiyingFuneralServiceoperatedwasanupstreammarketandthatLishengFuneralServiceprovidedfuneralintermediaryservicesthatwerederivedfrombasicfuneralservices,andoperatedinadownstreammarket,funeralintermediaryservicemarket.T

41、heallegedmonopolisticconductoccurredinthebasicfuneralservicemarketandalsohadanimpactonthefuneralintermediaryservicemarket.JiyingFuneralServicewasapublicutilityenterpriseinanexclusivepositioninthebasicfuneralservicemarketindowntownQuanzhou.Thebasicfuneralservicesitprovidedwerespecificservicesessentia

42、lforLishengFuneralServicetoperformfuneralintermediaryservices,andtherewerenoalternativeservicesforLishengFuneralService.JiyingFuneralServicesrefusaltoperformtherelevantbusinessforLishengFuneralServicecausedLishengFuneralServicetobeexcludedfromthefuneralagencyservicemarketindowntownQuanzhou5excludeda

43、ndlimitedcompetitioninthefuneralagencyservicemarket,anddamagedtheinterestsofthedeceased,srelativesasconsumersundertheAnti-monopolyLaw5andconstitutedrefusaltodealprohibitedbythelaw.Sinceitsestablishment,LishengFuneralServicehadbeenengagedinfuneralintermediaryservicesandlongandstablydealtwithbasicfune

44、ralserviceproviders;restoringtheoriginaldealingswasnottoimposeanydealingobligations.TheSupremePeople,sCourtenteredafinaljudgment,reversingthefirst-instancejudgment,orderingJiyingFuneralServicetoresumeprocessingLishengFuneralServicesapplicationforcremationbusinessonbehalfoftherelativesofthedeceasedac

45、cordingtorelevantlaws,regulations,andindustrymanagementstandards,determiningatitsdiscretionthatJiyingFuneralServiceshouldpay80,000yuantoLishengFuneralServiceforthelosscausedbyrefusaltodeal,basedonthenature,extent,circumstances,anddurationoftherefusal,therebyfullyupholdingLishengFuneralService,sclaim

46、forcompensation.基本殡葬服务市场具有独占地位 的公用企业，其提供的基本殡葬 服务是立升公司开展殡仪中介服 务不可或缺的特定服务，且立升 公司没有替代选择。集英公司拒 绝为立升公司办理相关业务，导 致立升公司被彻底排除在泉州市 中心市区的殡仪中介服务市场之 外，排除、限制了殡仪中介服务 市场的竞争，损害了作为反垄断 法意义上消费者的死者亲属的利 益，构成反垄断法所禁止的拒绝 交易行为。立升公司自成立后一 直从事殡仪中介服务，与基本殡 葬服务提供者之间存在长期、稳 定的交易关系，恢复原有交易并 非强加交易义务。最高人民法院 终审判决，撤销一审判决，改判 集英公司在符合相关法律、法规

47、 规定和行业管理规范的条件下恢 复立升公司代死者亲属申办遗体 火化业务；同时根据集英公司拒 绝交易行为的性质、程度、情 节、持续时间，酌定集英公司赔 偿因其拒绝交易行为给立升公司 造成的损失8万元，全额支持了 立升公司的赔偿诉讼请求。【典型意义】本案明确了具有独 占地位的公用企业，如果是交易 相对人开展生产经营活动不可或 缺的特定服务的唯一提供者，判SignificanceThiscasespecifiesthatifapublicutilityenterpriseinanexclusivepositionistheonlyproviderofspecificservicesthatarees

48、sentialforthepartydealingwithittocarryoutproductionandbusinessactivities,theimpactof断其拒绝交易行为的反竞争效果 时应综合评判对上下游市场竞争 的影响，以及是否损害消费者的 利益。同时，本案对拒绝交易行 为的救济措施以及拒绝交易行为 造成损失的认定标准进行了探 索Q本案裁判对保障基本民生， 规范殡葬行业的市场竞争秩序， 预防和制止具有独占地位的公用 企业实施垄断行为具有积极意 义。therefusaltodealonthecompetitioninthedownstreamandupstreammarketsa

49、ndwhethertherefusaldamagestheinterestsofconsumersshallbecomprehensivelyassessedwhentheanti-competitiveeffectoftherefusalisassessed.Thiscasealsoexploredtheremediesforrefusaltodealandthecriteriafordetermininglossescausedbyit.Theadjudicationonthiscasehaspositivesignificanceforprotectingbasicpeopleslivelihood,regulatingcompetitioninthefuneralservicemarket,andpreventingan