No-Challenge Clauses in an SEP Licensing Agreement as an Abuse of a Dominant Position.

Journal article

1 online resource (pages 1171–1176)

Law No. 4054 on the Protection of Competition, Art. 6 ‒ TV Subtitling Software Headnotes by the Editorial Office 1. Adding a ‘no-challenge clause’ to an SEP licensing agreement subject to FRAND constitutes an abuse of a dominant position. Therefore, in terms of competition law, the right of a licensee to question the validity of the relevant patent is an interest worth protecting. 2. The argument that the ‘no-challenge clause’ added to the contract will end global litigation between the parties is not sufficient on its own. Council of State, decision of 15 November 2022 ‒ Case No. 2022/2966, Decision No. 2022/4240 […] Subject of the Petition: It is requested that the (…) Regional Administrative Court (…) Administrative Case Department’s decision dated (…) No. (…) be reversed on appeal. The trial proceedings Request at issue in the lawsuit: It was requested that the Competition Board (Board) decision […] regarding the imposition of an administrative fine of 0.75% of the annual gross revenues determined by the Board at the end of the fiscal year 2018 on the grounds that the plaintiff company was in a dominant position in the subtitling technology market for digital video broadcasting during the period examined and violated Art. 6 of Law No. 4054 on the Protection of Competition be annulled.

Crossref

GRUR International, 2632-8550 ; 72, 12, 2023.

[Oxford, England] : Oxford University Press (OUP), 2023

English

https://academic.oup.com/grurint/article/72/3/231/6998505

External Online Journals > GRUR