Short Reads

Huawei v ZTE: ECJ rules on injunction possibility of SEP owner against alleged infringer after a FRAND licensing proposal – abuse of dominant position

Huawei v ZTE: ECJ rules on injunction possibility of SEP owner against alleged infringer after a FRAND licensing proposal – abuse of dominant position

Huawei v ZTE: ECJ rules on injunction possibility of SEP owner against alleged infringer after a FRAND licensing proposal – abuse of dominant position

12.08.2015 BE law

The European Court of Justice (“ECJ”) handed down its decision on July 16, 2015 in the case Huawei v. ZTE (C-170/13). It clarified the possibility for owners of a standard-essential patent (“SEP”) to seek an injunction against alleged infringers.

Also available in French and Dutch. 

The case concerns a request for preliminary ruling by the Dusseldorf Regional Court, who requests the ECJ to answer to the question whether Huawei is abusing its dominant position as an SEP owner by seeking an injunction against ZTE for the use of Huawei’s LTE patented technology without paying royalties to the latter. 

According to the ECJ, an SEP owner who seeks an injunction as a result of the alleged unauthorized use of its patented technology by a third party does not abuse its dominant position, in the sense of Article 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU (“TFEU”), if:

  1. The SEP owner has  notified the third party about the alleged infringement;
  2. The SEP owner has presented a Fair, Reasonable, and Non Discriminatory (“FRAND”) licensing proposal to said third party;
  3. After having received the notice and proposal (mentioned in 1 and 2 above), the alleged infringer continues to use the SEP owner’s patented technology without responding to the SEP owner that it is willing to enter into FRAND licensing negotiations.

The ECJ further clarified that an alleged infringer that has not accepted a licensing offer can only assert that the SEP owner is abusing its dominant position if the alleged infringer has actually responded to the FRAND licensing offer with a written counter-offer.

Although this decision gives some clarification on the matter, several questions remain unanswered. For example, the ECJ did not clarify what can be considered as a FRAND licensing offer. Further, if the parties have submitted a FRAND offer and counter-offer, but they cannot come to an agreement, litigation concerning unauthorized use of the patent will still be inevitable.

Team

Related news

12.10.2018 BE law
Ignace Vernimme and Michiel Van Roey speak on IP rightsduring Agoria's Research & Standardization Event

Speaking slot - On Thursday 25 October, Agoria's Regulatory and Standardization Expertise Center organizes its 5th information day about regulations and standards for topics including international trade, privacy and contract law, transport, Internet of Things and blockchain, eHealth, ... at regional, national and European level.

Read more

12.07.2018 NL law
Voortgang wetsvoorstel Wet bescherming bedrijfsgeheimen

Short Reads - Op 5 juli 2016 is de Richtlijn bedrijfsgeheimen (2016/943/EU) in werking getreden. De richtlijn heeft tot doel de regels inzake bescherming van niet-openbaar gemaakte knowhow en bedrijfsinformatie (bedrijfsgeheimen) in de EU lidstaten te harmoniseren. De richtlijn moest voor 9 juni 2018 geïmplementeerd zijn in de Nederlandse wet- en regelgeving. Nederland heeft deze termijn niet gehaald.

Read more

26.09.2018 EU law
Artikel 13 DSM-richtlijn: verplichting tot een online content filter?

Short Reads - In het kader van de modernisering van het auteursrecht binnen de Europese Unie heeft het Europese Parlement op woensdag 12 september 2018 gestemd over het voorstel voor een Richtlijn van het Europees Parlement en de Raad inzake auteursrechten in de 'digitale eengemaakte markt' (ofwel de Digital Single Market, afgekort de 'DSM-richtlijn'). Met name artikel 13 van de DSM-richtlijn – de zogenaamde 'content filter'- wordt ontvangen met veel kritiek. In deze blog wordt kort ingegaan op de betekenis en de mogelijke gevolgen van artikel 13.

Read more

07.08.2018 NL law
Legislative proposal to protect trade secrets: update

Short Reads - On 5 July 2016, the EU Trade Secrets Directive came into effect (Directive 2016/943/EU). The directive intends to harmonise rules regarding the protection of undisclosed know-how and business information (trade secrets) across all EU member states. As the directive is not directly applicable in the member states, each member state must enact national implementing legislation.

Read more

Our website uses cookies: third party analytics cookies to best adapt our website to your needs & cookies to enable social media functionalities. For more information on the use of cookies, please check our Privacy and Cookie Policy. Please note that you can change your cookie opt-ins at any time via your browser settings.

Privacy – en cookieverklaring