Article summary
IP analysis: This case considered the extent of an implementer’s obligation to commit to enter into a fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory (FRAND) licence (the court was asked to consider whether an implementer had to commit to taking a FRAND licence before knowing the terms set by the court, or whether an implementer could await the outcome of the FRAND determination before committing to take the licence) and the availability of injunctive relief when an implementer has declined to give an unqualified commitment to enter into a FRAND licence and a standard essential patent (SEP) has been found valid and infringed. The case was heard by Mr Justice Meade, who concluded that the implementer should be subject to a FRAND injunction if the implementer did not commit to enter into whatever licence the court determined to be FRAND in advance of knowing those terms. Relying on the Supreme Court’s reasoning in Unwired Planet v Huawei, Meade J concluded that withholding...
To continue reading this news article, as well as thousands of others like it, sign in with LexisNexis or register for a free trial