Journal of Intellectual Property Rights

Open Access Open Access  Restricted Access Subscription Access

The SEPs Debate and Surrounding Issues: Part -IV


Affiliations
1 Faculty of Law, University of Delhi, Delhi — 110 007, Delhi, India
2 West Bengal National University of Juridical Sciences, Salt Lake City — 700 106, Kolkata, India
 

The domain of SEPs is highly engrossed with multitude of issues, as it is generally understood. Most of the issues come from patent holders' anti-competitive behavior, which includes unilateral rejection to license, patent ambushes, patent hold-ups, strategic injunctive relief, royalty staking, and breach of F/RAND Commitments, both inside and outside of SSOs (national & international). One of the key tenets of standards is that they be universally recognized and applied once they have been approved. Suppliers view standards as a way to meet consumer needs while also offering a chance to pave the way for innovation through compatibility, complementarily and interoperability. Standards thus have an impact on both innovation and the dissemination of technology since they create a technological infrastructure with a significant public benefit component. The previous article provided the readers with a comprehensive introduction to SEPs and their implications in the modern intellectual property landscape. This issue of this yearlong series will take the baton further to dwell on the issues circumventing around this domain of SEPs.

Keywords

SEP, SSO, F/RAND, ASI, BIS, ETSI.
User
Notifications
Font Size

  • ILO, Non-Standard Employment around World, Understanding the Challenges and Shaping Prospects, Geneva (2016).

  • Pılena A & Mežinska I, Standardization as catalyst for open & responsible innovation, Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity, 2017, 187.

  • https://blog.ipleaders.in/law-of-contracts-notes/ (accessed on 2 June 2022).

  • Yogesh P, Standard Essential Patens: Prolegomena, Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, 19 (2014) 59.

  • Geradin D, Pricing abuses by essential patent holders in standard-setting context: View from Europe, Antitrust Law Journal, 76 (2009) 329.

  • Bharadwaj A, Devaiah V H & Gupta I, Multi-dimensional Approaches Towards New Technology, Springer Open, 2018.

  • Emeterio M, Antitrust deterrence of patent holdup: Refocusing on competition as a driver of technological innovation, UC Irvine Law Review, 2022, 12.

  • https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/4-621-1358?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&fir stPage=true (accessed on 29 June 2022).

  • Chien C, 'Holding Up' & 'Holding Out', Michigan Telecommunications and Technology Law Review, 2014, 21.

  • Dornis T W, SEP & F/RAND Licensing-At crossroads of economic theory & legal practice, Journal of European Competition Law & Practice, 2020.

  • http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ (accessed on 25 June 2022).

  • Micromax v Ericsson, Case No. 50/2013, Competition Commission of India, 12 November 2013.

  • https://voxeu.org/article/licensing-standard-essential-patents (accessed on 2 July 2022).

  • Epstein R A & Noroozi K B, Why incentives for "Patent Holdout" threaten to dismantle F/RAND, and why it matters, University of Chicago Law School Chicago, 2017.

  • Simcoe T, Graham S & Feldman M, 'Competing on standards? Entrepreneurship, intellectual property, and platform, Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, 18 (2009) 775.

  • Sidak J, What aggregate royalty do manufacturers of mobile phones pay to license Standard-Essential Patents? The Criterion Journal on Innovation, 1 (2016) 701.

  • No.13-1489 (Fed. Cir. 2014).

  • https://www.ipwatchdog.com/2020/11/17/F/RAND-royalty-base-statements-and-cellular-wireless-standard-essential-patents-part-iii/id=127397/ (accessed on 13 July 2022).

  • Ericsson v Micromax, CS(OS) 442/2013, 12 November 2014.

  • Galetovicy A & Guptaz K, Royalty stacking and Standard Essential Patents: Theory and evidence from the world mobile wireless industry, June 2016.

  • CRS Report for Congress, Availability of Injunctive Relief for Standard-Essential Patent Holders, 2013.

  • Sidak J, Is a FRAND royalty a point or a range? Criterion Journal on Innovation, 2 (2017) 401.

  • https://www.wipo.int/wipo_magazine/en/2015/03/article_0003.html (accessed on 1 July 2022).

  • Justus B, Technology Standards & Standard Setting Organizations: Introduction to Searle Center Database, Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, 2018, 27.

  • Baron J, Contreras J L, et al., Making rules: The Governance of the Standard Development Organizations & their Policies on IPR, JRC Science for Policy Report, EUR 29655 EN, March 2019.

  • Antony T, Competition Policy Roots of Intellectual Property Law: A Reflection, 2021, 10.1017/9781108157827.008.


Abstract Views: 130

PDF Views: 88




  • The SEPs Debate and Surrounding Issues: Part -IV

Abstract Views: 130  |  PDF Views: 88

Authors

Prashant
Faculty of Law, University of Delhi, Delhi — 110 007, Delhi, India
Ashwini Siwal
Faculty of Law, University of Delhi, Delhi — 110 007, Delhi, India
Jayanta Ghosh
West Bengal National University of Juridical Sciences, Salt Lake City — 700 106, Kolkata, India

Abstract


The domain of SEPs is highly engrossed with multitude of issues, as it is generally understood. Most of the issues come from patent holders' anti-competitive behavior, which includes unilateral rejection to license, patent ambushes, patent hold-ups, strategic injunctive relief, royalty staking, and breach of F/RAND Commitments, both inside and outside of SSOs (national & international). One of the key tenets of standards is that they be universally recognized and applied once they have been approved. Suppliers view standards as a way to meet consumer needs while also offering a chance to pave the way for innovation through compatibility, complementarily and interoperability. Standards thus have an impact on both innovation and the dissemination of technology since they create a technological infrastructure with a significant public benefit component. The previous article provided the readers with a comprehensive introduction to SEPs and their implications in the modern intellectual property landscape. This issue of this yearlong series will take the baton further to dwell on the issues circumventing around this domain of SEPs.

Keywords


SEP, SSO, F/RAND, ASI, BIS, ETSI.

References