Patent rights are recognized as a property asset with an attendant right to exclude. However, recent policy developments highlight that the right to exclude is not inviolable. This paper explores two rapidly evolving exceptions to patent exclusivity, both of which take the form of compulsory licenses. First, under the international Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (“TRIPS”), national governments can compel patent owners to out-license technology in service of greater good. These egalitarian compulsory licenses improve access to technology but undermine patent value. Second, compulsory licenses are increasingly relied upon as an equitable remedy in U.S. patent litigation. Typically referred to as “ongoing royalties,” these court-mandated compulsory licenses are a modern alternative to injunctions against adjudged infringers. TRIPS compulsory licenses and ongoing royalties arise under independent legal frameworks, but necessarily invoke parallel economic considerations. While the wisdom of each has been discussed at length by others, this paper explores principles of royalty determination employed in each context. Considering both frameworks, an analysis of where each succeeds and fails is provided, together with an exploration of optimized royalty frameworks.

中文翻译：

---

TRIPS 协议下的强制许可与作为衡平法救济的持续特许权使用费之间特许权使用费认定的分歧和趋同

专利权被确认为具有相应排除权的财产资产。然而，最近的政策发展强调，排除权并非不可侵犯。本文探讨了专利独占权的两个快速发展的例外情况，这两种例外都采用强制许可的形式。首先，根据《与贸易有关的知识产权国际协定》（“TRIPS”），各国政府可以强制专利所有者为更大的利益提供技术许可。这些平等主义的强制许可改善了技术的获取，但削弱了专利价值。其次，在美国专利诉讼中，越来越多地依赖强制许可作为衡平法补救措施。通常被称为“持续的特许权使用费，”这些法院授权的强制许可是对被判定侵权者的禁令的现代替代方案。TRIPS 强制许可和持续的特许权使用费产生于独立的法律框架下，但必然会引起平行的经济考虑。虽然其他人已经详细讨论了每个人的智慧，但本文探讨了在每种情况下采用的特许权使用费确定原则。考虑到这两个框架，提供了对每个框架成功和失败的分析，以及对优化版税框架的探索。