Technologies that implement particular standards securing compatibility and interoperability govern our everyday lives. Given that on the one hand technical standards should be accessible to the largest possible extent and on the other hand intellectual property right (IPR) holders may restrict such access, a number of legal issues arise. This thesis primarily focuses on technical standards governed by standard-setting organizations and consequences of the inclusion of intellectual property rights (IPRs) in such standards for their proprietors from the EU competition law perspective. In this regard, the method adopted in this thesis firstly explores the underlying theoretical notions, then focuses on the current EU competition law position de lege lata and discusses possible adjustments thereof de lege ferenda. In the first chapter, technical standards are discussed along with their economic effects, particularly, compatibility, interoperability and network effects. Second chapter lays down the basic matters of interplay between technical standards, IPRs and EU competition law, namely standard-essential patents (SEPs) and fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory (FRAND) licensing terms. Current EU competition law issues are consequently outlined (patent ambush, hold-up) with emphasis on Commission's...

Standardization as a topic is only getting more and more relevant in today’s high-tech markets. The topic of this thesis is to highlight the differences in how the courts handle cases regarding the abuse of a dominant position of an intellectual-property right and standard essential patents. This difference will be shown through a presentation and analysis of the evolution of settled case law regarding refusal to license from the CJEU that will be compared to the case of Huawei v ZTE from 2015. I will also show a few examples how different national courts in the Union have received the courts judgement in “Huawei” and if there are any leftover questions that need to be cleared up. This thesis will show that there are several differences between the handling of refusal to license and standard-essential patents of the court. Differences regarding the underlying interests that the court considers, the courts view on the consumer, and to what degree the court regards the effect of the parties actions in their judgement.

Die Arbeit untersucht die Durchsetzung von Ansprüchen auf Unterlassung aus standardessentiellen Patenten (SEP). Ausgehend von den ökonomischen und rechtsdogmatischen Grundlagen des Patentrechts wird zunächst die Legitimation des Anspruchs auf Unterlassung im Gefüge des Patentrechts untersucht und der Frage nachgegangen, inwieweit die Gewährung von Ausschließlichkeitsbefugnissen zur Verwirklichung der Ziele von Innovationsschutz und -förderung notwendig ist. Die Prüfung kommt zu dem Schluss, dass die Ausübung des Anspruchs auf Unterlassung aus SEP unter Umständen eine ökonomisch und rechtsdogmatisch unerwünschte Blockadeposition herbeiführen kann, so dass eine Einschränkung des Anspruchs zur Sicherung der innovationsfördernden Funktionen des Patentrechts geboten sein kann. Sodann werden verschiedene Lösungsansätze diskutiert und dabei besonderes Augenmerk auf die durch die deutsche und europäische Rechtsprechung entwickelte kartellrechtliche Lösung gelegt. Nach einer Betrachtung der Tatbestandsmerkmale des kartellrechtlichen Verbots des Missbrauchs von Marktmacht nach Art. 102 AEUV bzw. §§ 19, 20 GWB und deren Anwendung auf Fälle der Erhebung von Unterlassungsklagen aus SEP wird diese Lösung abgelehnt. Der Tatbestand des Missbrauchs von Markmacht vermag wegen der Fokussierung auf (Produkt-)märkte und des Erfordernisses einer marktbeherrschenden Stellung als Anwendungsvoraussetzung bei stringenter Auslegung der Vorschrift nicht alle relevanten Fälle zu fassen. Im Folgenden werden Ansätze diskutiert und bewertet, welche eine rechtliche Verankerung der Einschränkung des Anspruchs auf Unterlassung eher im Vertrags- oder im Patentrecht selbst suchen. Als Ergebnis wird sich schließlich dafür ausgesprochen, das in § 23 PatG für die Abgabe einer Lizenzbereitschaftserklärung vorgesehene Verfahren mit seinen wechselseitigen Pflichten analog auf Fälle der Erhebung einer Unterlassungsklage aus SEP anzuwenden und die Zulässigkeit der Erhebung von Unterlassungsklagen nach diesem Maßstab zu beurteilen. / The work analyzes the enforcement of claims for injunctive relief based on standard-essential patens (SEP). Taking the economic and legal foundations of patent law as a starting point, the legitimacy of the claim for injunctive relief within the system of patent law is assessed, as is the question of whether granting the power to exclude others from use of a patented technology is necessary for protecting and promoting innovation. It is found that injunctive relief based on a SEP can lead to an economically and legally unwanted blocking position, in favor of the patent holder, which may require restricting the exclusive right of the patent holder in order to ensurethe patent's function of promoting innovation. Following this, different approaches for solving the issue are discussed. A special focus is put on antitrust law which has been used as a basis to limit injunctive relief by the German and European courts. After considering the elements of Art. 102 TFEU, §§ 19, 20 of the German Antitrust Code (GWB) respectively, the application of antitrust law is rejected. Due to its focus on (product-)markets and the requirement of a dominant market position, antitrust law is not fit to sufficiently limit the negative impact that injunctive relief from a SEP might have on innovation. The work further discusses and assesses other approaches which are trying to apply contract law or certain provisions of patent law. As a result, it is suggested to analogously apply the procedure set out in § 23 PatG (German Patent Code) and its system of mutual obligations to assess the legitimacy of injunctive relief in SEP-cases

The mobile revolution has had a huge effect on our lives in all spheres. To ensure its continued evolution patents have played a part in protecting rightsholders from infringement cases by implementers. Also, many companies in the ICT industry focusing on innovation have come together to create standards, which ensure interoperability and compatibility of devices whilst supporting an ecosystem that is beneficial for both innovators and implementers as well as the consumers. Despite challenges (hold-up and hold-out) arising, regulators and standards organizations have created policies to regulate the processes involved. This has seen the introduction of FRAND and other international agreements. Using 3GPP as an illustration, this thesis highlights the efforts that are poured in research and development to even come up with a set standard that is universally applicable. This thesis gives an analysis on the underlying principles and processes that allow for standardization. It focuses on the relationship between patents and standards and how a strong IPR system has an impact on the progress of technology innovation. This thesis will highlight the benefits that arise from an ecosystem that is predevelopment and analyses the legal cases that have been dealt with over the years. Several cases have been brought before the courts in different jurisdictions to address issues relating to standardization and the ruling have seen a change in direction on the way to approach FRAND. The landmark case Huawei v ZTE paved a way for Europe’s balanced approach on licensing agreements and now courts have realized the importance of both parties to actively participate in good faith negotiations. The same has happened in the United states where after eBay v MercExchange the courts are now realizing hold-out is equally detrimental as hold-up and can create complications in licensing. The courts are now reluctant in offering injunctive relief without efforts from both parties to perform licensing agreements. As the technological boom continues in an upward trajectory it is crucial now, more than ever for Africa to join in and leverage the available laws to benefit its SMEs and ICT industry and strengthen its IPR system. Legend has it that the stronger the protection of own technological know-how, the higher the likelihood to join formal standardization processes to leverage the value of the technological portfolios. The empirical findings establish that if African countries develop their IPR system, this can be a source of encouragement for innovators to engage in global standardization.

In the modern, sophisticated world, connectivity has become a part of everyday routine: answering the phone call through the car or sending emergency calls by smartwatch to the nearest hospital. The ICT industry is the one that enables this connectivity by developing such technologies as 3G, 4G, 5G and WI-FI that can connect the phone with a smartwatch, car, house or speaker. At the same time, the interconnection of a significant number of devices creates licensing issues, and one of them is discussed in this thesis. The two long-established industries: ICT and automotive, are in licensing contradiction due to the different licensing practices. One such case is the dispute between ICT producer Nokia and car manufacturer Daimler. Nokia obtains a patent essential to the 4G standard that shall be licensed on the FRAND terms. The merits of the case- are to who shall the owner of the ICT patent provide license: to all implementers or just to one; whether it has the right to choose its licensees. To figure out the answers, I examined the contractual obligations of Nokia to the ETSI (FRAND commitment), its compliance with Article 102 of the TFEU (abuse of dominant position) and whether the patent exhaustion prohibits some licensing practices.

This thesis examines problems concerning international standard-essential patent licensing disputes within the EU from a private international law perspective. Furthermore, it seeks to analyse the jurisdictional rules which are established by the Brussels Ia Regulation when applied to cross-border SEP licensing disputes. The backdrop for the present study is the system of international standardisation and the licensing of those patents which are essential to the implementation of a technical standard. It is primarily concerned with EU law as it relates to technical standardisation in the field of telecommunications, since it plays a significant role in today’s global information society. As a rule, SEP holders make a commitment to license their essential patents according to terms which are fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory (FRAND). In order to fulfil the aim of the thesis, the legal nature of such a FRAND commitment has been examined, finding that it should be characterised as an enforceable contract for the benefit of third parties. Patent rights have traditionally been thought of as territorial in nature, which raises questions regarding the possibilities for cross-border enforcement, as well as how the rules on jurisdiction should be applied by national courts in the EU when faced with international disputes where the subject matter is considered to be, to an extent, territorially bound. One of the fundamental questions that arise out of this is how, in the context of SEP licensing, the legal framework for SEP disputes affects the application of the jurisdictional rules in cross-border cases. As a consequence of the lack of harmonisation as well as legal regulation and guidance relating to SEP licensing, individual courts in Europe have developed their own distinct approaches and methodologies in SEP disputes. There is a risk that this lack of uniformity leads not only to greater legal uncertainty, but also widespread patent litigation. In particular, recent case law from Germany and the United Kingdom has been influential in creating a precedent that national courts are able to set FRAND licensing terms which are global in scope. This has led to certain courts taking a more active approach in international SEP disputes—even if they concern foreign patents—granting injunctions which in some cases seek to limit the jurisdiction of foreign courts. It seems to follow from this that a ‘race to the courthouse’ is to be expected in SEP disputes, which is further facilitated by the ample room for forum shopping that exists in the Brussels Ia Regulation. Lastly, the thesis also deals, in part, with the new unitary patent system, as well as the Unified Patent Court and the question of how the UPC may come to affect the future of SEP disputes within the EU. Appropriate solutions to the identified problems are discussed, favouring either a concentration of SEP litigation to one forum, or the development of guiding principles so as to increase legal certainty.

La norme technique exige parfois de lui associer des innovations faisant l’objet de droits privatifs, au bénéfice de la réalisation de sa mission. De prime abord, la propriété intellectuelle apparaît comme étant un élément perturbateur, impliquant désormais d’examiner l’ « économie » de la norme au moment de son élaboration et de son utilisation et non plus uniquement la technique. Pour éviter la corruption de la norme par des droits privatifs trop contraignants, les organismes de normalisation exigent que seuls les droits privatifs « essentiels » soient associés à la norme. Les critères de l’adhérence réciproque de la norme et de l’innovation structurant leur association, justifient au nom de son « utilité sociale », une adaptation réciproque des régimes juridiques attachés à ses deux composantes. Ainsi l’ « utilité sociale » incarnée par la norme technique impose une adaptation du régime des droits de propriété intellectuelle. Symétriquement, l’innovation « essentielle » à la norme suppose une adaptation du régime de la norme technique à la propriété intellectuelle. Cela donne naissance à deux régimes juridiques substantiellement interpénétrés et structurellement interdépendants. D’une part, les droits privatifs étant « essentiels » à la norme, peuvent être considérés comme des « infrastructures essentielles », justifiant une érosion systémique de leur portée dans le cadre de leur association à la norme. Dans le cadre de l’application de règles de concurrence, cette érosion résulte d’une approche ex post à laquelle se conjugue une approche ex ante, conceptualisée par les conditions FRAND. D’autre part, l’association s’évalue également à l’aune de la propriété privée. Il apparaît que la norme technique devrait être considérée comme étant une chose commune imposant d’aménager, au bénéfice de ses utilisateurs, un accès et une utilisation libre. Cela suppose d’envisager alors l’émergence d’un droit d’utilisation de l’innovation associée à la norme technique. / Technical standards may sometimes be associated to innovations covered by proprietary rights. In this case, intellectual property appears to embody a quite disturbing component within the partnership between standardization and innovation. We are thus led to analyse the association economy ; it must be construed as of the creation and the use of the standard rather than to insist on its sole technical aspects. In order to avoid the corruption of the standard by over-restrictive IP rights, standard-setting-organizations require that only "essential" proprietary rights can be associated to a technical standard. Economical and technical criterias of the mutual adherence of the technical standard and the owned innovation – structuring their association – justify in the name of its "social utility", a mutual adaptation of their legal regimes. Therefore, the technical standard’s "social utility" requires an adaptation of the IP rights legal regime. Symmetrically, the essential innovation, included in the standard, requires its fitting to the technical standards legal regime. This results in the rise of two regimes naturally interpenetrated, and structurally interdependent. On the one hand, IP rights "essential" to the standard, can be considered as "essential facilities", justifying a systematic erosion of their spectrum. As part of competition rules implementation, this erosion results from an ex post approach as well as an ex ante approach conceptualized by FRAND terms. On the other hand, the association is also evaluated through the private property perspective. It appears that the technical standard should be considered as a "common", assuming a free access and a free use. It contributes to create a right of use of the owned innovations integrated in technical standard.

京都大学 / 0048 / 新制・課程博士 / 博士(法学) / 甲第21514号 / 法博第231号 / 新制||法||165(附属図書館) / 京都大学大学院法学研究科法政理論専攻 / (主査)教授 愛知 靖之, 教授 川濵 昇, 教授 吉政 知広 / 学位規則第4条第1項該当 / Doctor of Laws / Kyoto University / DGAM