Juha Vesala Postdoctoral researcher University of Helsinki NIR 2016 Copenhagen 20 June 2016 Approach and logic of Huawei Exercise exceptional circumstances paradigm continued ID: 524231
Download Presentation The PPT/PDF document "Huawei – broader context and implicati..." is the property of its rightful owner. Permission is granted to download and print the materials on this web site for personal, non-commercial use only, and to display it on your personal computer provided you do not modify the materials and that you retain all copyright notices contained in the materials. By downloading content from our website, you accept the terms of this agreement.
Slide1
Huawei – broader context and implications
Juha Vesala
Post-doctoral researcher
University of Helsinki
NIR 2016
Copenhagen, 20 June 2016Slide2
Approach and logic of Huawei
Exercise
/
exceptional
circumstances
paradigm
continued
:
standard-setting
context
represents
exceptional
circumstances
distinct
from
previous
ones
identified
by CJEU
Indispensability
of SEPs for product market
competition
FRAND
licensing
commitments
given
in
exchange
of SEP status and
creating
legitimate
expectations
In this
context
,
seeking
injunctive
relief
can be
abusive
to the
extent
FRAND license
refused
due
to
concerns
about
product market
becoming
reserved
to SEP
holder
Effective
legal
remedies
cannot
be
denied
,
but
SEP
holder's
FRAND
commitment
justifies
the
imposition
of
preconditions
for
non-abusive
enforcementSlide3
Applicability to SEPs in
other
situations
CJEU's
reasoning
addresses
exclusion
from product market by SEP
holder
that is
active
on it –
does
not
explicitly
cover
injunctions
in
other
settings
(e.g. NPEs and
situations
where
foreclosure
concerns
are not major)
However
, the
generally
formulated
steps
imposed
on SEP
holders
would
seem
to
address
these
situations
quite
broadly
Assessment
of
other
abuses
(e.g.
excessive
royalties
)
could
also
be
influenced
by the framework
established
for
negotiations
Slide4
Implications
beyond
SEPs?
The logic of
abusiveness
(
indispensability
and
legitimate
expectations
) is not
unique
to SEPs
Comparable
circumstances
could
be
found
when
IPR
holders
give
licensing
commitments
in
other
situations
where
IPR is
indispensable
for
operating
on a product market and the
commitment
contributes
to the
technology
gaining
that
position
Open
source
licensing
Unilateral
de facto
standards
Comparable
abuse
could
also
be
alleged
when
IPR
holder
seeks
injunctive
relief
in a way that
justifies
limitation
on
effective
remedies
SEPs that
were
not
properly
disclosed
(no
licensing
commitment
)
Attempts
to
exploit
IP
litigation
system
(e.g.
costs
of
redesign
and
litigation
)