Wednesday, March 25, 2015

THE MEANING OF FRAND, PART II: INJUNCTIONS

Greg Sidak (Criterion Economics) explains THE MEANING OF FRAND, PART II: INJUNCTIONS.

ABSTRACT: Under what conditions may the holder of standard-essential patents (SEPs) seek to enjoin an infringing implementer without breaching the SEP holder's contract with the standard-setting organization (SSO) to provide access to those SEPs on fair, reasonable, and nondiscriminatory (FRAND) terms? I show that the SEP holder's contractual obligations still permit it to seek an injunction. A FRAND commitment requires the SEP holder to offer a license for the SEPs on FRAND terms (or otherwise to grant implementers access to the SEPs). Extending an offer containing a price within the FRAND range discharges the SEP holder's contractual obligation. Thereafter, the SEP holder may seek to enjoin an implementer that has rejected a FRAND offer. This analysis indicates the imprudence of categorically banning injunctions for the infringement of SEPs, as some scholars have advocated and as one of the world's most significant SSOs—the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE)—actually did in 2015 in amendments to its bylaws. Such a ban would invite opportunism by implementers and is unnecessary. Courts already can prevent opportunism by SEP holders by conditioning an injunction on the implementer's actual or constructive rejection of a FRAND offer.

https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/antitrustprof_blog/2015/03/the-meaning-of-frand-part-ii-injunctions.html

| Permalink

TrackBack URL for this entry:

https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341bfae553ef01b8d0da26c0970c

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference THE MEANING OF FRAND, PART II: INJUNCTIONS:

Comments

Post a comment