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.

Mervärdesskatterättsligt särbehandlas omsättning av upphovsrätter genom tillämpning av en reducerad skattesats. I 7 kap. 1 § 3 st. 8-9 p. ML hänvisas direkt till upphovs­rättslagen för bedömningen av förekomsten av en upphovsrättsligt skyddad prestation och rättighetens övergång. Föreligger en mervärdesskatterättslig omsättning av eko­nomiska värden samtidigt med en upphovsrättsligt giltig upplåtelse eller överlåtelse av en upphovsrättsligt skyddad prestation ska omsättningen beskattas med en reducerad skattesats om sex procent. Uppsatsen utreder intrångsersättning enligt 54 § 1 st. URL i relation till det mervärdes­skatterättsliga omsättningsbegreppet och den reducerade skattesatsen i 7 kap. 1 § 3 st. 8-9 p. ML.  Ersättning enligt 54 § 1 st. URL ska erläggas då ett intrång i upphovsrätten kan konstateras. Ersättning ska alltid utgå oavsett god tro och även i fall där upphovs­mannen, genom t.ex. positiva sidoeffekter, tjänat på intrånget. I doktrin har det därför uttalats att ersättningen inte utgör skadestånd, något som lagstiftaren uttryckligen klassificerat den att vara. Vid en granskning av ersättningens karaktär och syfte i rela­tion till upphovsrättslagens regler för rättighetens övergång framgår att en upphovs­rättsligt giltig överlåtelse eller upplåtelse inte föreligger vid en transaktion som föranlett ersättningsskyldighet enligt 54 § 1 st. URL. Enligt 7 kap. 1 § 3st. 8-9 p. ML är detta en förutsättning för att transaktionen ska omfattas av den reducerade skattesatsen. I ett mervärdesskatterättsligt perspektiv står det emellertid klart att ersättning enligt 54 § 1 st. URL är tänkt att spegla de förhållanden som hade gällt om parterna ingått avtal på för­hand och att det finns ett ostridigt samband mellan ersättningens storlek och det faktiska nyttjandet av rättigheten. Således skulle ersättningen mervärdesskatterättsligt kunna jämställas med en upplåtelse av nyttjanderätt. För tillämpning av den reducerade skatte­satsen i 7 kap. 1 § 3st. 8-9 p. ML är ett jämställande med upplåtelse ur mervärdes­skatterättslig synpunkt emellertid inte tillräckligt. Mervärdesskattelagens ovillkorliga koppling till upphovsrättslagen i 7 kap. 1 § 3st. 8-9 p. ML medför att en upplåtelse ska prövas enligt upphovsrättslagens regler för rättighetens övergång. Den samlade slutsatsen av uppsatsens utredning är följaktligen att ersättning enligt 54 § 1 st. URL kan omfattas av det mervärdesskatterättsliga omsättningsbegreppet. Mervärdesskattelagens ovillkorliga koppling till upphovsrättslagen innebär emellertid att ersättningen inte kan omfattas av 7 kap. 1 § 3st. 8-9 p. ML och den reducerade skattesatsen om 6 procent. Ersättningen utbetalas till följd av ett intrång och avsaknaden av en uttrycklig överenskommelse hindrar en tillämpning av 7 kap. 1 § 3st. 8-9 p. ML. / VAT turnover of copyrights are subject to a reduced VAT-rate. In the Value added tax act (ML) the paragraph of 7 kap. 1 § 3 st.  8-9 p. ML refers directly to the Copyright act (URL) for the assessment of the existence of a copyright and, the sale or lease of such a right. If a taxable supply is at hand while, simultaneously, a legally valid lease or sale of a copyright can be established, the turnover is taxed at a reduced VAT-rate of six percent. The thesis investigates intrusion compensation under Article 54 § 1 st. URL relative to the value added tax turnover concept and the reduced rate in 7 kap 1 § 3 st.  8-9 p. ML. Compensation according to Article 54 § 1 st. URL must be paid when an infringement of copyright is at hand. Compensation should always be paid regardless of good faith and even in cases where the holder of the right has earned revenue by e.g. spin-offs. In the legal literature, it has therefore been expressed that Article 54 § 1 st. URL does not con­stitute damages, something that the legislature explicitly has classified it to be. When reviewing the character and purpose of the compensation in relation to URL, and its rules for the transition of the right, it is clear that a valid transition does not exist in a transaction that has prompted compensation under Article 54 § 1 st. URL. According to 7 kap. 1 § 3st. 8-9 p. ML, this is a prerequisite. For the transaction to be covered by the reduced VAT-rate, a valid transition, according to the general rules of the rights transition in URL, must be at hand. However, from a VAT-perspective, compensation under 54 § 1 st. URL is meant to reflect the conditions that would have been if the concerned parties had reached an agreement in advance. There is an undisputed link between the remuneration and the actual use of the right. Thus, the compensation could be deemed equal to a lawful lease of copyright. For the purposes of the reduced tax rate in 7 kap. 1 § 3st. 8-9 p. ML, an equation of the compensation to a lawful lease of copyright is not sufficient. The provision is directly connected to URL and any transition of copyright must therefore be examined under the URL's rules for the transition of rights. The overall conclusion of this thesis is therefore that compensation under 54 § 1 st. URL may be subject to VAT. However, due to the unconditional connection to URL, the turnover cannot qualify for the reduced tax rate of six percent stipulated in 7 kap. 1 § 3st. 8-9 p. ML. The compensation is paid as a result of an infringement of copyright and the absence of an explicit agreement prevents the application of the reduced tax rate in 7 kap. 1 § 3st. 8-9 p. ML.