000049125 000__ 02696cam\a22003975i\4500
000049125 001__ 49125
000049125 003__ SzGeWIPO
000049125 005__ 20240322214816.0
000049125 006__ m    eo  d        
000049125 007__ cr bn |||m|||a
000049125 008__ 240321s2023\\\\enk\\\\\o\\\\\000\0\eng\d
000049125 0247_ $$a10.1093/grurint/ikad112$$2doi
000049125 035__ $$a(OCoLC)1427546121
000049125 040__ $$aSzGeWIPO$$beng$$erda$$cSzGeWIPO$$dCaBNVSL
000049125 041__ $$aeng
000049125 24500 $$aNo-Challenge Clauses in an SEP Licensing Agreement as an Abuse of a Dominant Position.
000049125 264_1 $$a[Oxford, England] :$$bOxford University Press (OUP),$$c2023
000049125 300__ $$a1 online resource (pages   1171–1176)
000049125 336__ $$atext$$2rdacontent
000049125 337__ $$acomputer$$2rdamedia
000049125 338__ $$aonline resource$$bcr$$2rdacarrier
000049125 4901_ $$aGRUR International,$$x2632-8550 ;$$v72, 12, 2023
000049125 520__ $$aLaw No. 4054 on the Protection of Competition, Art. 6 ‒ TV Subtitling Software  Headnotes by the Editorial Office 1. Adding a ‘no-challenge clause’ to an SEP licensing agreement subject to FRAND constitutes an abuse of a dominant position. Therefore, in terms of competition law, the right of a licensee to question the validity of the relevant patent is an interest worth protecting.  2. The argument that the ‘no-challenge clause’ added to the contract will end global litigation between the parties is not sufficient on its own.  Council of State, decision of 15 November 2022 ‒ Case No. 2022/2966, Decision No. 2022/4240 […]  Subject of the Petition: It is requested that the (…) Regional Administrative Court (…) Administrative Case Department’s decision dated (…) No. (…) be reversed on appeal.  The trial proceedings Request at issue in the lawsuit: It was requested that the Competition Board (Board) decision […] regarding the imposition of an administrative fine of 0.75% of the annual gross revenues determined by the Board at the end of the fiscal year 2018 on the grounds that the plaintiff company was in a dominant position in the subtitling technology market for digital video broadcasting during the period examined and violated Art. 6 of Law No. 4054 on the Protection of Competition be annulled.
000049125 542__ $$fhttps://academic.oup.com/grurint/article/72/3/231/6998505
000049125 588__ $$aCrossref
000049125 590__ $$aPublished online: 02-Dec-23
000049125 650_0 $$aIntellectual property.
000049125 650_0 $$aCompetition law.
000049125 650_0 $$aPatent laws and legislation$$zTurkey.
000049125 650_0 $$aStandardization$$xLaw and legislation.
000049125 650_0 $$aPatents.
000049125 7731_ $$tGRUR International$$wGRUR
000049125 830_0 $$aGRUR International,$$x2632-8550 ;$$v72, 12, 2023.
000049125 85641 $$uhttps://doi.org/10.1093/grurint/ikad112$$yonline version
000049125 904__ $$aArticle
000049125 980__ $$aGRUR