Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorNIKOLIC, Igor
dc.date.accessioned2022-03-03T09:15:14Z
dc.date.available2022-03-03T09:15:14Z
dc.date.issued2022
dc.identifier.issn1028-3625
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/1814/74282
dc.description.abstractThe global litigation of standard essential patents (SEP) is taking a new turn with the jurisdictional battle between national courts. Some courts have started issuing anti-suit injunctions (ASI) to prohibit parallel litigation and consolidate the dispute at a single venue, while others have retaliated with anti-anti-suit injunctions (AASI), barring parties from seeking or enforcing foreign ASIs. The anti-suit injunction saga benefits no one: the parties in SEP licensing disputes are faced with legal uncertainty as to which court will hear their case; it incentivises a race to the court to secure the most favourable jurisdiction instead of focusing on licensing negotiations; it increases litigation costs of having to pursue multiple ASIs and AASIs; and parties face fines and imprisonment of officials for non-compliance. The article examines the general conditions for the grant of ASIs and AASIs and analyses their application in SEP disputes. The article then proposes three measures that courts can take to stop the global jurisdictional race. First, courts should exercise judicial restraint and return to the originally strict criteria for the granting of ASIs. In principle, ASIs in SEP cases should not be granted as they are incompatible with international comity, fundamental rights to property and access to a court. Only anti-enforcement injunctions may exceptionally be granted, and under strict conditions. Second, a court could hold a party seeking an ASI as ‘unwilling’ to license, acting as a strong deterrent from seeking this type of remedy. Third, courts could encourage parties to agree on the arbitration of FRAND licensing terms by holding that an unjustified refusal to enter into arbitration is a sign of ‘unwillingness’ to license. Taking these principles into account would ensure that each national court is respected and would incentivise parties to focus on the resolution of the key issue behind every SEP dispute – the appropriate FRAND licensing terms.en
dc.format.mimetypeapplication/pdfen
dc.language.isoenen
dc.publisherEuropean University Instituteen
dc.relation.ispartofseriesEUI RSCen
dc.relation.ispartofseries2022/10en
dc.relation.ispartofseriesFlorence School of Regulationen
dc.relation.ispartofseriesCommunication & Mediaen
dc.rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessen
dc.rights.urihttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/us/*
dc.subjectAnti-suit injunctionsen
dc.subjectAnti-anti suit injunctionsen
dc.subjectSEPsen
dc.subjectPatent disputesen
dc.subjectArbitrationen
dc.titleGlobal standard essential patent litigation : anti-suit and anti-anti-suit injunctionsen
dc.typeWorking Paperen
dc.rights.licenseAttribution 3.0 United States*


Files associated with this item

Icon
Icon

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

Attribution 3.0 United States
Except where otherwise noted, this item's license is described as Attribution 3.0 United States