Competition Law and Cellphone Patents

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
SEM21-02 ETSI Seminar 2010 « Legal Considerations » Erik Jansen, LL.M. ETSI Legal Director Copyright © ETSI All rights reserved. ETSI Seminar Sophia.
Advertisements

Standards, Open Standards and IPR Paul Davey Strategic Relationships Executive Vodafone Group Plc.
LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS © ETSI All rights reserved ETSI Seminar 2012.
Negotiating Technology License Agreements Tamara Nanayakkara.
Standard Essential Patents in Infringement Litigations - Orange-Book-Approach and latest developments Conference on Information Technology, Innovation.
GATS & Telecom Transparency. Key Ingredients for Reform }Clearly set out policies in laws, regulations, licenses, contracts }Make all processes open.
COMPETITION ACT,  The Finance Minister in his Budget Speech on 27 th February, 1999 stated “The Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act.
1 S.Tronchon Legal Considerations when drafting a standard.
Brussels, 29 October 2007 Bart Janse DG Research IPR in FP7.
RAND REVISITED: CURRENT DEVELOPMENTS IN THE LAW OF STANDARDS-ESSENTIAL PATENTS What Is F/RAND And What Patents Are Subject To It? Mark Flanagan Liv Herriot.
Air Force Materiel Command I n t e g r i t y - S e r v i c e - E x c e l l e n c e Developing, Fielding, and Sustaining America’s Aerospace Force INTELLECTUAL.
ROYALTY AMOUNT in FRAND: IP High-Court Grand Panel Decision Pre-Meeting AIPLA-Annual Washington, D.C. Oct , 2014 Hirokazu Honda Attorney-at-Law Abe,
1 Is there a conflict between competition law and intellectual property rights? Edward Whitehorn Head, Competition Affairs Branch Carrie Tang Assistant.
DOMESTICATION OF TRIPS FLEXIBILITIES IN NATIONAL IP LEGISLATION FOR STRENGTHENING ACCESS TO MEDICINES IN ZAMBIA PROPOSED PATENT BILL AND ITS RELEVANCY.
COLLABORATION IN LIFE SCIENCES FIELD: COMPETITION CONCERNS by Craig Simpson, Brussels EU Regulatory Practice 27 September 2006.
InterDigital v. Arima Anne Layne-Farrar Demonstratives December 9, 2013.
IPR related obligations DG Research & Innovation Research and Innovation.
ENFORCEMENT OF PATENT RIGHTS IN EUROPE The Hungarian way Zsolt SZENTPÉTERI S.B.G.&K. Patent and Law Offices, Budapest International Seminar Intellectual.
1 FRAND COMMITMENTS AND EU COMPETITION LAW Thomas Kramler European Commission, DG Competition (The views expressed are not necessarily those of the European.
DOMESTICATION OF TRIPS FLEXIBILITIES IN NATIONAL IP LEGISLATION FOR STRENGTHENING ACCESS TO MEDICINES IN ZAMBIA PROPOSED PATENT BILL AND ITS RELEVANCY.
A: Copy –Rights – Artistic, Literary work, Computer software Etc. B: Related Rights – Performers, Phonogram Producers, Broadcasters etc. C: Industrial.
International Telecommunication Union New Delhi, India, December 2011 ITU Workshop on Standards and Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) Issues Philip.
International Telecommunication Union New Delhi, India, December 2011 ITU Workshop on Standards and Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) Issues Utsab.
Slide title 70 pt CAPITALS Slide subtitle minimum 30 pt Standard essential patents And frand licensing – the need for a balanced approach Ulrika Wester,
Law in the Global Marketplace: Intellectual Property and Related Issues Hosted by: FRAND in Europe: Huawei vs ZTE decision.
ABA China Inside and Out September , Beijing The interface between competition law and intellectual property Nicholas Banasevic, DG Competition,
Session 30: FRAND Licensing Disputes NJA Advanced Course on Commercial Matters Bhopal, India January 23, 2016 Richard Tan, Chartered Arbitrator, Singapore.
PATENTS, INTEGRATED CIRCUITS, AND INDUSTRIAL DESIGNS Presented By: Navdeep World Trade Organization.
Recent Japanese Cases Regarding Standard Essential Patents and FRAND Licensing Declaration AIPLA-IPHC Meeting April 11, 2013 Shinji ODA Judge, Intellectual.
Standards and competition policy EU-China Workshop on Application of Anti-monopoly Law in Intellectual Property Area Changsha, 11. – 12. March 2010 Peter.
Intellectual Property and Public Policy: Application of Flexibilities in the International IP and Trade system --Limitation and Exceptions for Education.
Sangmin Song, Director, Anti-Monopoly Div., KFTC MRFTA & IP Rights 1.
COMPETITION POLICY AND LAW 1 2 EXTANT COMPETITION LAW OF INDIA MONOPOLIES AND RESTRICTIVE TRADE PRACTICES ACT, 1969 BROUGHT INTO FORCE IN 1970.
Intellectual Property Law versus Anti-Monopoly Law EU-China IPR2 Project Conference on intellectual property related issues in the judicial application.
Compulsory Licence Defence in Patent Infringement Proceedings presented at the 2009 International Conference on Judicial Protection of IPR 11 September.
Latonia Gordon Microsoft NJTIP 10 th Anniversary Symposium Chicago, March 7-8, 2013 The views expressed herein are solely those of the author; they should.
Stephen S. Korniczky Anti-Suit Injunctions – Leveling the Playing Field When Seeking a FRAND License to Standard-Essential.
Dialogue on Competition Policy and Intellectual Property *
Connectivity to bank and sample account structure
Legal Considerations ETSI Seminar © ETSI All rights reserved.
Global competition amongst Standard Setting Organizations (SSOs) LCII – TILEC Conference - Brussels May 30, 2017 Alfred Chaouat – Senior Vice President.
Wang Xianlin, Law School of Shanghai Jiao Tong University
European Union Law Week 10.
International IP Roundtable UNLV, 8 April Seizure of Goods in Transit
Lecture 28 Intellectual Property(Cont’d)
ENFORCEMENT OF PATENT RIGHTS IN EUROPE The Hungarian way
University of Ottawa - Faculty of Law
International Conference on Judicial Protection of IPR
INTERCONNECTION GUIDELINES
Patent Term Extension In Israel
National Contact Points (NCP) Training
IP Licensing and Competition Policy: Guidelines and the Cases in Japan
SEPs and Antitrust Enforcement in Taiwan: The Challenges and Unresolved Issues Recent Jurisprudence Related to SEPs in International Jurisdictions Ya-Lun.
International Conference on Judicial Protection of IPR
Subject : law aspects of corporate business
GSM Association Presentation to ETSI SOS Interop
Voluntary Codes and Standards
Arbitration – Telecoms Industry
“Revisiting Abuse of Dominance & IPRs: Emerging Jurisprudence of the Indian Competition Law” “Plenary 2: A comparative perspective to IPR and Competition:
TORTS RELATING TO INCORPOREAL PROPERTIES
Legal Aspects Of Corporate Business
IPR in FP7 Bart Janse DG Research A.2.
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS (IPR) IN FP7
Giles S. Rich Inn of Court September 26, 2018
Standards and competition law Michael Adam DG Competition, European Commission (speaking in a personal capacity - the views expressed are not necessarily.
IP and legal issues Super-project.eu.
Standards and Patents in the CEN and CENELEC system
The role of injunctions in FRAND proceedings – a UK perspective
Update on IP and Antitrust
Legal Considerations IPR in ETSI
Presentation transcript:

Competition Law and Cellphone Patents Customer Care No. 91-11-45562222 Competition Law and Cellphone Patents www.taxmann.com

Introduction The Competition Act 2002("Act") was enacted for the establishment of a Commission to prevent practices having adverse effect on competition, to promote and sustain competition in markets, to protect the interests of consumers and to ensure freedom of trade carried on by other participants in markets, in India, and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. The provisions of section 4 of the Competition Act, 2002 mandate the Competition Commission of India ("CCI") to inquire into the cases where dominant players may restrict competition in the market by way of denial of market access and by imposing unfair and discriminatory conditions. The present case as determined by CCI in its order Best IT World (India) (P.) Ltd. (iBall v.Telefonaktiebolaget L M Ericsson (Publ) [2015] 59 taxmann.com 55/131 SCL 392 (CCI)enunciates abuse of dominant position in market of Standard Essential Patents for 2G, 3G and 4G technologies in GSM standard compliant mobile communication devices in India. Customer Care No. 91-11-45562222 www.taxmann.com

Meaning of certain terms 2 Meaning of certain terms 2. Standard Essential Patents ("SEP"): An Essential Patent or Standard Essential Patent is a patent that claims an invention that must be used to comply with a standard. Standards frequently make reference to technologies that are protected by patents. A patent that protects technology that is essential to comply with a standard is called a Standard Essential Patent. The (supra) of judgement adjudicated by United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit defines standard essential patent as……… "Creating some standards, like IEEE's 802.11 standard, is a complicated process that involves the collaboration and can involve cooperation of a number of interested parties. Due to the collaborative nature of this process, the chosen standard may include technology developed by a number of different parties. Sometimes that technology is covered by patents. Because the standard requires that devices utilize specific technology, compliant devices necessarily infringe certain claims in patents that cover technology incorporated into the standard. These patents are called "standard essential patents" ("SEP"). European Telecommunications Standards Institute ("ETSI") :-ETSI, the European Telecommunications Standards Institute, produces globally-applicable standards for Information and Communications Technologies (ICT), including fixed, mobile, radio, converged, broadcast and Internet technologies. ETSI are officially recognized by the European Union as a European Standards Organization Customer Care No. 91-11-45562222 www.taxmann.com

FRAND: It is a legal term which stands for Fair, reasonable and Non-discriminatory. FRAND terms puts obligation on owner of SEP to license its patents under FRAND terms. 3. Facts of the Case ♦ M/s Best IT World (India) Private Limited ("Informant") was engaged in Business of import and distribution of computer peripherals, mobile handsets, tablets etc. under brand name 'iBall'. Telefonaktiebolaget L M Ericsson ("TLME") incorporated under laws of Sweden. Ericsson India Private Limited ("EIPL") is 100% subsidiary of TLME and was engaged in the business of manufacturing and sale of telecom equipment, network equipment, software and other services in India.[TLME & EIPL hereinafter termed as Ericsson] ♦ Informant stated that Ericsson is one of the world's largest telecommunication companies with a global market share of 38% and also one of the largest holders of Standard Essential Patents ("SEPs‟) in the mobile phone and wireless industries with approximately 33,000 granted patents as of 2012, out of which 400 were granted in India. ♦ Ericsson issued letter to Informant stating that, informants products have infringed GSM (Global System for Mobile Communications) and/ or WCDMA (Wideband Code Division Multiple Access) and requested meeting to discuss the Issue. ♦ Ericsson specified that Informant should enter into a Global Patent Licensing Agreement ("GPLA") for all the patents of Ericsson. The Informant showed its willingness to enter into GPLA , if Ericsson specified which patent have been infringed , such patents were valid and enforceable in India and the terms of such arrangement were reasonable and not onerous. Customer Care No. 91-11-45562222 www.taxmann.com

♦ Ericsson notified the Informant to enter into a non-disclosure agreement ("NDA") before proceeding the matter .The informant alleged that, Ericsson reluctant to share information of infringement of patents unless the informant executed NDA. The informant further stated that they were willing to enter into a license agreement under FRAND terms and within jurisdiction of Indian courts as the current NDA terms were very strict ,onerous and one sided. The informant was of view that Ericsson was tying and bundling of patents irrelevant to the Informant's products and demanding unreasonably high royalties by way of certain percentage of handset, such an act of Ericsson is in violation of Section 4 of the Act. Can owner of standard essential patent be obliged to issue patents to third party? 4. A patent holder is granted a statutory right to prevent third parties from making, using, offering for sale, selling or importing the patented products and if the patent is a process then the patent holder would have the right to prevent the third parties from using or in any manner dealing with the said patent. The only manner in which a patent holder can exercise his rights is by refusing a licence permitting a third party to exploit its patent and it would be quite legitimate for a patentee to seek injunctive relief to enforce such rights. However, on the other hand, a refusal by a patentee to grant a licence may result in adverse effect on competition. Customer Care No. 91-11-45562222 www.taxmann.com

Considering the present case, Ericsson being a member of ETSI is bound to offer its SEPs on FRAND terms. As per clause 6.1 of the - ETSI Intellectual Property Rights Policy expressly provides that:– "When an ESSENTIAL IPR relating to a particular STANDARD or TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION is brought to the attention of ETSI, the Director-General of ETSI shall immediately request the owner to give within three months an irrevocable undertaking in writing that it is prepared to grant irrevocable licences on fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory ("FRAND") terms and conditions under such IPR to at least the following extent: ♦ MANUFACTURE, including the right to make or have made customized components and sub-systems to the licensee's own design for use in MANUFACTURE; ♦ Sell, lease, or otherwise dispose of EQUIPMENT so MANUFACTURED; ♦ Repair, use, or operate EQUIPMENT; and ♦ Use METHODS. The above undertaking may be made subject to the condition that those who seek licences agree to reciprocate." Customer Care No. 91-11-45562222 www.taxmann.com

To read more, please click here Customer Care No. 91-11-45562222 www.taxmann.com