Saturday, October 31, 2015

CPI Antitrust Chronicle: Autumn 2015, Volume 10 Number 2 - The Huawei-ZTE Decision

In our previous issue we took a broad look at the intersection of antitrust and intellectual property. Now we're burrowing more deeply, looking at the ECJ's decision in Huawei v ZTE that attempts to establish an EU framework for SEP licensing negotiations—a decision made even more noteworthy as the two players are both Chinese tech giants. Our authors address whether the decision cleared the waters—or made them murkier.

The Huawei-ZTE Decision
  1. Kyriakos Fountoukakos, Nick Root, Oct 27, 2015

    Huawei Technologies: More Certainty on SEP Injunctions, But Not the End of the Story


    It is, therefore, clear that there remains some scope for a divergence in the approach taken in different Member States. Kyriakos Fountoukakos & Nick Root (Herbert Smith Freehills LLP)

  2. Dina Kallay, Oct 27, 2015

    The ECJ Huawei–ZTE Decision: En Route to Ending Hold-Out?


    The importance of the Decision lies in the procedural framework it provides for licensing negotiations. Dina Kallay (Ericsson)

  3. James Killick, Stratigoula Sakellariou, Oct 27, 2015

    Huawei v ZTE – No More Need to Look at the Orange Book in SEP Disputes


    It is perhaps a sign of changing times that a key EU decision is being set for the first time by Chinese tech giants rather than U.S. ones. James Killick & Stratigoula Sakellariou (White & Case LLP)

  4. Nicolas Petit, Oct 27, 2015

    Huaweï v ZTE: Judicial Conservatism at the Patent-Antitrust Intersection


    This short paper argues that Huaweï v ZTE is a conservative judgment—it only extends by a razor-thin margin the zone of antitrust liability for patent owners. Nicolas Petit (University of Liège)

  5. Miguel Rato, Collette Rawnsley, Mark English, Oct 27, 2015

    Huawei: Establishing the Legal Standard for a FRAND Defense as a Basis for Resisting Requests for Injunctive Relief for Infringements of SEPs Under Competition Law


    The CJEU appears to have considered incorrectly that a request for an injunction is analogous to a refusal to license. Miguel Rato, Collette Rawnsley, & Mark English (Shearman & Sterling LLP)

| Permalink


Post a comment