Search

Copyright of Automotive Digest is the property of Automotive Digest Editorial Office and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Taiwan Law Review is the property of Angle Publishing Co., Ltd and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

ICT-based standards can enable and enhance interoperability and compatibility and decrease transaction costs in the ICT-driven marketplace. World trade would not be prosperous today but for the rapid modern development of ICT-based industries across the globe. Nowadays, most technical standards in the ICT-based industries are covered by patents, and controversies over standard essential patents and FRAND licensing have been disrupting global ICT-based industries and corresponding trade flows. Current dispute settlement mechanisms for resolving ex-post FRAND-rate disputes generally fall into two categories: adjudication by national courts and certain types of arbitration. Yet they are neither adequate nor satisfactory. In the meantime, to a certain degree, it seems impracticable to count on the approach of patent policy clarifications by SDOs to clinch currently escalating FRAND-based disputes as well. In short, there presently seem to be no quick fixes. In contrast, international public governance may better serve the goal of progressively resolving costly FRAND-based disputes in the long run. Specifically in the context of world trade, a plurilateral SEP-related competition agreement might be relatively achievable. Meanwhile, in combination with and complementing other existing and proposed means, this agreement is likely to be an integral part of the multi-factor solution toolkit for resolving costly and disruptive FRAND-based disputes across the globe. For one thing, it could help alleviate the on-going escalating FRAND-based disputes per se; for another, such an initiative might instil new momentum into the multilateral trading system, which is struggling through a variety of institutional difficulties. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The majority of patents related to automotive safety systems are owned by a limited number of companies. Absorption and implementation of such innovations in large markets require solutions that would go beyond what is protected through exclusive means viz. patents. Taking learnings from the field of communication, wherein by implementing what is known as standard-essential patents, a horizontal deployment of a similar concept is required in other areas, most notably, automotive safety systems is necessitated. This study aims to explore the need for a practical approach to a broader technological, commercial, and social cause.

Using 23 867 standard essential patents claimed for three different wireless telecommunication standards (GSM, WCDMA, and LTE), this research examined the difference in technological importance and breadth of patents between practicing and non‐practicing entities. We discovered that compared to manufacturers and service providers, organizations who do not appropriate innovation‐derived profits directly from product or service markets tended to have relatively low‐quality but broadly scoped technologies for the claimed standard essential patents. These relationships between the characteristics of inventions and the organizational types were consistently held across different generations of wireless standards as indicated by regressions run for each sample split by generation. Furthermore, the theory and policy implications of our results and arguments are presented herein.

A limited number of companies own the majority of patents related to automotive safety systems. Absorption and implementation of such innovations in large markets require solutions that would go beyond what is protected through exclusive means namely, patents. Taking learnings from the field of communication, wherein by implementing what is known as standard‐essential patents, a horizontal deployment of a similar concept is required in other areas, most notably, automotive safety systems are necessitated. This study aims to explore the need for a practical approach to a broader technological, commercial, and social cause. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The holder of a Standard Essential Patent (SEP) is usually required to license its patent to any licensee on the basis of Fair and Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory (FRAND) terms. In their recent judgments in Unwired Planet and Sisvel v. Haier, the UK Supreme Court and the German Bundesgerichtshof ruled that a 'range', rather than a 'single' royalty rate, may be considered compatible with the FRAND commitment. On the other hand, a royalty rate 'beyond the outer boundary of the range' would not be FRAND. In addition, an 'unfair' royalty rate might also be regarded as an abuse of dominant position by the SEP holder, in breach of Article 102(a) Treaty of the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). The paper analyses whether and under what circumstances Article 102(a) TFEU could be relied on by a competition authority in Europe to sanction a case of 'unfair' royalty rate requested by the SEP holder to its licensees. In particular, the paper assesses 'when' competition policy should sanction an unfair royalty rate requested by the SEP holder, 'how' a competition agency should analyse the case in accordance with the case law of the EU Court of Justice concerning Article 102(a) TFEU and, eventually, 'what' remedies the competition authority could adopt. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

When regulating standard essential patents with antitrust law, how to balance the interest relationship of both sides is an important issue to properly solve the disputes. There are some problems in the regulation including the patent hold - up and reverse hold - up caused by uncertainty of FRAND declaration, the flaws of the existing legal provisions and the principle establishment and the ambiguous definition of abuse behaviors and inconsistent of license fee of the patent holders. In this study, the common patent hold - up and reverse hold - up behaviors are analyzed. And some legal and judicial measures of antitrust law on weighing the relationship between operators are put forward. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Using 23 867 standard essential patents claimed for three different wireless telecommunication standards (GSM, WCDMA, and LTE), this research examined the difference in technological importance and breadth of patents between practicing and non‐practicing entities. We discovered that compared to manufacturers and service providers, organizations who do not appropriate innovation‐derived profits directly from product or service markets tended to have relatively low‐quality but broadly scoped technologies for the claimed standard essential patents. These relationships between the characteristics of inventions and the organizational types were consistently held across different generations of wireless standards as indicated by regressions run for each sample split by generation. Furthermore, the theory and policy implications of our results and arguments are presented herein. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

With the increased awareness and focus on safety systems in the automotive domain, it is imperative for regulatory authorities to not only bring in the latest technologies but also ensure reachability and affordability for all. However, the patents related to the latest safety features concentrate in the hands of a few technology leaders, thus rendering the technology access costly and scarce. In such a scenario, adapting principles of SEPs and their permit of use in FRAND conditions as in the telecom domain would create a symbiotic relationship between the technology producers and end-users. The first part of this paper deals with studying the relevant patent filing activities to sensitize the innovation happing in the field of automotive engineering in general and automotive safety in particular. The second part focuses on standards and its establishment process in India and its global context in terms of harmonization. The third part deals with the gap in the operation of Indian Standard establishing authorities and the Indian Patent system. This paper concludes by arguing that it is essential to adopt a cross-functional team to horizontally utilize the best of learnings of the telecom domain in terms of licensing SEPs under FRAND terms. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The working procedure for SEP was analyzed，patent disclosure policy and FRAND principle of SSO were described.Based on the actual case analysis，some key problems of SEP in practice were analyzed，including patent licensing rates，relief under FRAND principle，antitrust law regulation of the abuse of SEP.

Copyright of Taiwan Law Review is the property of Angle Publishing Co., Ltd and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Taiwan Law Review is the property of Angle Publishing Co., Ltd and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The paper aims to make a general presentation of some of the interactions between Intellectual Property Law and Competition Law focusing on the case of patent rights and their effects on the qualification of their owner's position under the provisions of art. 6 of the Competition Law and art. 102 TFEU. In order to highlight these interactions we chose to individualize the case of standard essential patents, in what these are concerned the interactions being more evident, documented in both literature and practice and also of great current interest. Starting with the delineation of the constitutive elements of the abuse of dominance, the paper identifies how these apply to patents, how these are potentiated in what concerns standard essential patents and what are the effects of the application, in what these are concerned, of the rules regarding abuse of dominance. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In recent years, competition and antitrust enforcement against standard essential patents (SEPs) in Asia has drawn the world's attention by prominent investigations as well as high-profile cases. While the legal systems of the U.S. and EU are relatively more mature and sound, Asian countries are rapidly improving. Four fast-growing Asian countries--China, Japan, Korea, and India--have focused on this area, albeit with different points of emphasis, which are reflected in their legislation, judiciaries, and enforcement practices. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Competition authorities and courts across the world have assessed issues at the interface between competition law and intellectual property rights. India is no longer a stranger to this debate and has witnessed the initiation of multiple proceedings involving the exercise of standard essential patents. Further, a long-pending jurisdictional conflict has now been resolved by a court decision, paving the way for the Indian competition authority and courts to concurrently examine the exercise of standard essential patents. While these developments represent a step in the evolution of antitrust jurisprudence in India, several foundational issues in relation to the competition enforcement against standard essential patents are yet to be decided. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Entering into the ninth year of the Anti-Monopoly Law of the People's Republic of China (AML) in force, China has tackled high-profile cases, promulgated and implemented relevant rules and interpretations in regard to the interface between anti-monopoly and intellectual property rights, while relevant guidelines are in process at the same time. On one hand, the competition authorities in the tripartite system of antitrust enforcement have respectively shown their attitudes towards relevant issues concerning intellectual property rights (IPR)-related anticompetitive conducts by initiating investigations and drafting guidelines. On the other hand, judicial remedies tend to be applied for in parallel, when enterprises who suffered anticompetitive treatment filed complaints to courts. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

South Korea is squarely involved in the global debates regarding the intersection between standard essential patents (SEPs) and competition law, as it is home to an active competition agency and major technology firms such as Samsung and LG that have rapidly advanced from being almost pure implementers/licensees to simultaneously becoming innovators/licensors in the information technology sector. The landmark case between Samsung and Apple was a major milestone in terms of the application of competition law to the exercise of patent rights by an SEP holder, in particular whether a filing of an injunction claim based on an SEP violated the law as an abuse of intellectual property rights. The Korea Fair Trade Commission has also shown substantial interest and activity in this area, as represented by its recent revisions of its intellectual property rights related guidelines, and with the Commission's latest decision at the end of 2016 against Qualcomm, the debate around the exercise of SEPs is sure to be more vigorous than ever, in addition to expanding to new issues and dimensions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Intellectual property rights (IPRs) in standards have proven to be an intensively debated issue nowadays. Although standards are meant to offer 'access' to technology and patents grant the possibility to 'exclude' others (exclusivity rights), both aim to promote innovation. The "return on investment" (ROI) from the patented technology selected to become part of a standard is the motor that fuels the development and implementation of standards. When aiming to solve highly complex technology problems the effort of many companies in sharing the technology resulting from large R&D investments is necessary. It is not surprising that, before sharing with others, such technical solutions are protected by patents. Thus, in the information communication technology (ICT) area the phenomenon of patents in standards is the general rule. Indeed, connecting millions of devices with each other (interoperability) and making them work properly (high performance) can only be achieved when the best technologies out of thousands of contributed technical solutions are selected. Considering some of the most celebrated Government of India's initiatives such as Internet of Things, Start Up India, Make in India, Digital India etc. calls for an effective IPR regime that incentivizes development of standardized technologies and encourages indigenous local manufacturing of innovative standardized devices. This will go a long way in reducing India's net import reliance, enhancing value addition, creating IP, generating employment, increasing domestic patent footprint, reducing cash outflow due to Bill of Materials (BOM), etc. With this view, the present paper analyses the concept of Standard Essential Patents (SEPs) and related issues to mobile technology that are deliberated at various forums. It summarizes some important aspects that arise when dealing with SEPs. The linkage of standards and patents has also been studied. The paper examines the patent landscape and offers analysis of existing and anticipated patent holdings. It also outlines the evolution of key technologies and provides comparative analysis of key patents. The paper brings light to some notable circumstances likely to influence the mobile patent landscape for the next several years and gives some recommendations for facilitating India's growth story in creation, protection, and wider adoption of technology. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

China's merger enforcement agency approved the Google/Motorola merger with conditions. This pattern of approval is not in full accordance with that in other jurisdictions, including the United States and the European Union, which made unconditional approvals. This contradiction attracted ample criticism; some critics believe that China's policy is designed to protect domestic industry. In investigating the Chinese merger agency's decision and the basis for its decision making, this article finds that much of the criticism is groundless and misleading because the critics have failed to incorporate all elements of the global value chain of mobile intelligent terminals into their analyses. The investigation also shows that, although the decision makers are less experienced, their decisions are based on Chinese competition law and market realities. It is important for international firms to be aware of this pattern in merger analysis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

If a patent gives its holder an exclusive right over the products or procedures it protects and if a standard is a document that sets out requirements for everybody to follow in order to properly obtain a certain result, a standard essential patent may only be a peculiar and complex concept. Thus, a standard essential patent (SEP) is a patent that protects a product or more often a procedure that is essential to a standard, in the way that it is impossible to manufacture standard-compliat products such as smartphones, tablets and other gadgets without using technology covered by SEPs. To alleviate any competition concerns and to ensure that the benefits of standardization are promulgated, SEP holders are required to commit to licensing their SEPs on FRAND (fair, reasonable, non-discriminatory) terms, a condition that aims to ensure that the technology incorporated in a standard is accessible to the standard users and that the SEP holders are financially rewarded. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Cross-Strait Law Review is the property of Angle Publishing Co., Ltd and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)