TY  - GEN
N2  - 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.
DO  - 10.1093/grurint/ikad112
DO  - doi
AB  - 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.
T1  - No-Challenge Clauses in an SEP Licensing Agreement as an Abuse of a Dominant Position.
JF  - GRUR International
VL  - 72, 12, 2023
LA  - eng
ID  - 49125
KW  - Intellectual property.
KW  - Competition law.
KW  - Patent laws and legislation
KW  - Standardization
KW  - Patents.
TI  - No-Challenge Clauses in an SEP Licensing Agreement as an Abuse of a Dominant Position.
LK  - https://doi.org/10.1093/grurint/ikad112
UR  - https://doi.org/10.1093/grurint/ikad112
ER  -