In response to the great crises of the COVID-19 coronavirus, virtually all new technologies protected by patent rights have been used in practice from diagnostics, therapeutic, medical equipment, and vaccine to prevention, tracking, and containment of COVID-19. However, the moral justification of patent rights is questioned when pharmaceutical patents conflict with public health. This paper proposes a revised approach of deciding on how to address the conflicts between business ethics and patent protections and then compares the different mechanisms of clearing patent thickets. Our findings highlight that patent pledges may not only contribute to achieving the maximized substantive justice of the public but also help patent pledgors fulfill procedural justice. The advantages of patent pledges have attracted many patent holders to make public statements during the COVID-19 pandemic. In contrast, the disadvantages of a free license may make patent pledges not sustainable for a long time without the related supporting measures. Our findings will be helpful for policymakers or company managers to make an appropriate decision on rationally utilizing patent portfolios for fighting against public health crises.

为应对 COVID-19 冠状病毒的巨大危机，从诊断、治疗、医疗设备和疫苗到 COVID-19 的预防、跟踪和遏制，几乎所有受专利权保护的新技术都已在实践中得到应用。然而，当药品专利与公众健康发生冲突时，专利权的道德正当性受到质疑。本文提出了一种修正的方法来决定如何解决商业道德和专利保护之间的冲突，然后比较不同的专利丛林清除机制。我们的研究结果强调，专利质押不仅有助于实现公众的最大实体正义，而且有助于专利质押人实现程序正义。专利承诺的优势吸引了许多专利持有人在 COVID-19 大流行期间发表公开声明。相比之下，免费许可的缺点可能会导致专利质押在没有相关配套措施的情况下长期不可持续。我们的研究结果将有助于政策制定者或公司管理者就合理利用专利组合应对公共卫生危机做出适当的决定。