战时有“兵马未动，粮草先行”一说，在人工智能迅猛发展的时代，技术、知识产权如同企业的“粮草”，也像商战中的炮弹，是竞争制胜的关键。一般的法律尽职调查，会对目标公司法律方面做全面的调查，包括公司的历史沿革、相关资质、重大资产与债务（含知识产权）、对外担保、重大合同、关联关系、纳税、环保、诉讼仲裁等一系列法律问题。 在知识产权获取型并购的法律尽职调查中，有经验的投资方除了一般性的法律尽职调查外，还会单独聘请知识产权律师对投资项目中的商标、专利、专有技术、版权、商业秘密等知识产权问题进行特别调查，甚至聘请技术专家会同知识产权律师对涉及的关键技术进行比对，这在技术密集型的投资项目中非常关键。开展上述知识产权法律调查工作，应时刻遵守以下三项基本原则。 所在地法律环境 知识产权获取型并购中，知识产权法律调查首先要注重目标知识产权所在地的法律环境。知识产权本身并非天然权利，是需要相应环境下的法律认可后方得以受保护的权利，法律的地域性决定了一项技术并非放之四海皆受同等保护。 需要特别指出的是，此处的法律环境包括政策、舆论、文化环境，以及可预期的法律变化情况。2011年，华为收购三叶系统公司（3Leaf）云计算领域的知识产权资产失败，原因之一就是对“发达国家对高技术限制出口”相关政策缺乏了解；收购美国网络设备公司3COM公司失败很可能也与此有关。 知识产权法律调查应结合知识产权所在地的法律环境，也要考虑收购方本国以及未来技术使用地的环境，从而确认被当前法域保护的知识产权是否能在其他法域获得相应的保护。 知识产权本身风险 对知识产权本身的调查是知识产权获取型并购的法律调查核心。从技术角度看，调查方式因知识产权的类型不同而不同。但无论何种类型的知识产权，法律调查都应集中关注其如何产生、是否有效、权属现状及变化情况等，通过这些调查判断交易对方是否依法取得并有效持有客户拟收购的知识产权、收购方收购并使用收购获得的知识产权是否存在法律障碍。具体而言，调查重点应集中于知识产权申请、注册、变更、登记、许可／授权、转让、涉诉等情况，尤其应当留意其中是否涉及共有权利、职务作品、交易对方通过协议方式对知识产权作出过其他安排等问题。 浙江华立并购飞利浦CDMA无线通信部门600项CDMA核心技术专利时，因事先未调查出飞利浦与高通签订了一系列CDMA芯片相关的协议，直接导致其不但未能通过收购获得目标CDMA专利技术，其开发和销售CDMA芯片和终端设备，还需要向高通公司支付技术许可费。 匹配度调查 知识产权获取型并购经历了由横向到纵向的发展。这一发展趋势说明，更多的企业期待通过并购延长产业链、优化技术，而这个过程并不仅仅只是技术的买进卖出，本土技术与外来技术的整合也是决定并购目的能否充分实现的关键。 这个过程可分为三部分：选择并购标的时，企业应当结合自身已有的知识产权情况、企业的发展战略等评估、筛选并购标的；并购过程中，应结合已有技术和中短期技术发展目标对目标知识产权与已有知识产权进行详细调查和对比，确保标的能够为己所用；并购后，对并入的知识产权与已有知识产权进行整合、对接，消化所获取的知识产权以实现并购战略目标。美国著名并购专家诺曼·霍夫曼（Norman Hoffmann）在其《大并购时代》一书中详尽阐释了并购后的整合对于实现并购目的的重要性。 多数并购交易都是一项复杂的利益衡量和博弈过程，上述三原则需要贯彻法律调查乃至并购业务的始终，需要密切结合并购方具体情况、并购目的、发展战略，制定并购策略及并购实施计划。盲目的并购可能成为无源之水、无本之木甚至引火烧身。除了知识产权法律调查之外，企业开展知识产权获取型并购时，还应当充分听取技术、财务等中介机构的专业意见，以求防患于未然。 Due diligence in M&amp;A transactions aimed at IP At a time when artificial intelligence (AI) is making monumental strides, technology and intellectual property (IP) hold the key to victory in business competition. General legal due diligence for any business entity transaction usually involves a comprehensive investigation into the legal aspects of a target company, including its history, relevant qualifications, material assets and liabilities (including intellectual property assets), external guarantees, material contracts, affiliated relations, tax payments, environmental protection performance, and litigation and/or arbitration. In due diligence for M&amp;A transactions aiming at IP, experienced investors will separately engage IP counsel to look into such IP-related issues as trademarks, patents, know-how, copyright and trade secrets that an investment project may involve. They may even hire technical experts to work alongside their IP counsel with regard to key technologies involved. This is critical in technology-intensive investment projects. The following three basic principles should be adhered to at all times when such IP due diligence is being conducted. LOCAL LEGAL ENVIRONMENT In M&amp;A transactions aimed at IP, IP due diligence should first focus on the legal environment where target IP assets are located. The right to intellectual property is not a natural right in itself and requires the recognition of local law to be protected in a specific setting. The territoriality or jurisdictionality of law determines that a technology is not equally protected everywhere. It is noteworthy that the legal environment discussed here encompasses government policy, public opinion, the cultural environment, and predictable changes to local laws. For example, Huawei failed in 2011 in its attempt to acquire 3Leaf’s cloud computing IP assets, in part because it had a limited understanding of the control policy of some developed countries with regard to the transfer or exportation of high technology. The deal by Bain Capital to buy 3Com with minority financing from Huawei also fell through, largely for the same reason. RISKS OF IP The investigation into intellectual property itself is a core part of legal due diligence for M&amp;A transactions aiming at IP. Though the technical approach in which the investigation is pursued may vary from one type of IP to another, a legal due diligence investigation should focus on the creation, validity and ownership of IP, and based on this determine: (1) whether the counterparty has lawfully acquired and effectively holds the proposed IP assets; and (2) whether any legal hurdle exists with regard to the buyer’s use of the IP assets being acquired. Specifically, the investigation should focus on IP application, registration, change, filing, licensing/authorization, transfer and the existence of any lawsuit concerning the IP assets. Special attention should be paid to such IP issues as whether it involves co-ownership and work for hire, or whether any other arrangement concerning the IP assets is made by the counterparty through an agreement. A failed case was Zhejiang-based Holley Communications Group’s acquisition of 600 CDMA patents from Philips Semiconductors in 2001. Failure to find out the patent cross-licensing agreements between Philips Semiconductors, a division of Royal Philips Electronics, and Qualcomm, a wireless technology company, before the deal resulted in Holley not being able to access the patented CDMA technology that it desired in the first place. Holley still needed to pay licensing fees to Qualcomm if it wished to develop and sell CDMA chips and terminals using the technology it acquired. The investigation into IP legal risks should be based on the legal environment within the jurisdiction where the IP assets are located, while consideration should also be given to the legal environment of the buyer’s own country, and the country or countries where IP-related technology is to be utilized. In this way, the question of whether IP rights protected in one jurisdiction are also protected in other jurisdictions can be properly answered. The trend of M&amp;A transactions aiming at IP has moved from horizontal to vertical. This shows that more companies are looking to extend their presence in the industrial chain and optimize technology through mergers and acquisitions. This process is not just about the acquisition or sale of technology. The integration of in-house technology and acquired technology is also essential to achieving M&amp;A goals. This process consists of three stages: before, during and after an M&amp;A transaction. In stage one (before an M&amp;A transaction), a company should base its selection and evaluation of potential targets on its own IP assets and development strategy. In stage two (during an M&amp;A transaction), the company should carefully look into and compare its own IP assets and the IP assets of the target, based on its existing technology and short- and medium-term goals for technological development, to ensure that the target will be used to its advantage. In stage three (after the conclusion of an M&amp;A transaction), the company should consolidate and absorb the acquired IP assets into its existing IP assets to achieve the M&amp;A goals. In a book the author recommends on the topic, entitled Mergers &amp; Acquisitions Strategy for Consolidations: Roll Up, Roll Out and Innovate for Superior Growth and Results, Norman Hoffmann, a well-known American M&amp;A expert, explains in detail the importance of consolidation for realizing M&amp;A goals. COMPLEX PROCESS Most M&amp;A transactions are a complex process of gaming and balancing of interests. The above-mentioned three principles should be adhered to throughout a due diligence process. An M&amp;A strategy and a detailed action plan should be designed with full consideration given to the specific circumstances, M&amp;A goals and corporate strategy of the acquiring or merging party. Blind mergers and acquisitions may end up a disaster. In addition to IP due diligence, enterprises should listen to what independent technical and financial advisers have to say for added caution.

知识产权获取型并购中的法律调查