@article{49125,
      url = {http://tind.wipo.int/record/49125},
      title = {No-Challenge Clauses in an SEP Licensing Agreement as an  Abuse of a Dominant Position.},
      abstract = {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.},
      doi = {https://doi.org/10.1093/grurint/ikad112},
      recid = {49125},
      pages = {1 online resource (pages   1171–1176)},
}