1. J. Gregory Sidak has published a paper titled The Meaning of FRAND, Part II: Injunctions. It is available for download here. Here is the abstract:
Under what conditions may the holder of standard-essential patents (SEPs) seek to enjoin an infringing implementer without breaching the SEP holder’s contract with the standard-setting organization (SSO) to provide access to those SEPs on fair, reasonable, and nondiscriminatory (FRAND) terms? I show that the SEP holder’s contractual obligations still permit it to seek an injunction. A FRAND commitment requires the SEP holder to offer a license for the SEPs on FRAND terms (or otherwise to grant implementers access to the SEPs). Extending an offer containing a price within the FRAND range discharges the SEP holder’s contractual obligation. Thereafter, the SEP holder may seek to enjoin an implementer that has rejected a FRAND offer. This analysis indicates the imprudence of categorically banning injunctions for the infringement of SEPs, as some scholars have advocated and as one of the world’s most significant SSOs—the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE)—had proposed, as of January 2015, in draft amendments to its bylaws. Such a ban would invite opportunism by implementers and is unnecessary. Courts already can prevent opportunism by SEP holders by conditioning an injunction on the implementer’s actual or constructive rejection of a FRAND offer.
I may have more to say about this paper after I've had a chance to read and digest it. As always, whether I ultimately agree with Mr. Sidak's views or not, it should be a stimulating paper.
2. Michela Angeli has published a paper titled Willing to Define Willingness: The (Almost) Final Word on SEP-Based Injunctions in Light of Samsung and Motorola, Journal of European Compettion Law & Practice (2015). Here is a link to the paper, and here is the abstract:
The decisions adopted by the Commission in the Samsung and Motorola cases establish that seeking injunctions on the basis of a standard essential patent (‘SEP’) for which a commitment to license under FRAND terms and conditions has been given to a Standard Setting Organisation (‘SSO’) violates Article 102 TFEU, unless it can be shown that the implementer is not willing to enter into a license agreement on FRAND terms and conditions.
While waiting for the CJEU to clarify the law in the Huawei case, both decisions contribute to the identification of a possible ‘safe harbour’ for both SEPs implementers who want to be protected from injunctions and SEPs holders who want to avoid antitrust liability arising out of the use of SEP-based injunctions.
In line with the Commission decisions, Advocate General Wathelet in his opinion in Huawei—handed down on 20 November 2014—proposes steps a SEP holder should take before seeking injunctions in order not to violate Article 102 TFEU, as well as obligations the alleged infringer should comply with to be considered willing.
Hat tip to Danny Sokol's Antitrust & Competition Policy Blog for bringing this one to my attention.