New Papers, Posts on FRAND, SEP Issues, Part 4

1. Richard Vary published a short article titled The Prodigal Licensee, 40 EIPR 691 (2018), which I missed when it came out.  Here is the abstract:

Recent decisions on FRAND have used a comparable licences methodology. Some licensees argue that non-discrimination means that they should get the lowest of all previous rates. But would that discriminate against the licensees who took out a licence in the past? When comparing past licences, we also need to price in the risk taken by early licensees in agreeing rates at a time when they had less information.

2. The July 2019 issue of GRUR Int. (pp. 670-76) includes an extended excerpt of the July 12, 2018 Delhi High Court judgment in Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V. vs. Rajesh Bansal And Ors., which I previously mentioned here and here, with links to posts by Divish Joshi.  

3.  Also regarding this case, Ashish Bharadwaj and Srajan Jain have published an article titled Philips v Bansal and Bhagirathi Electronics: India’s first decision on the infringement of a standard essential patent, in 9 Queen Mary Journal of Intellectual Property 346-50 (2019).  Here is the abstract:

The Delhi High Court considered the law and policy issues around standard essential patents in India. While the court adopted a very internationalist approach to the issue it included many unfortunate findings, which are explored here.

4.  Léon Dijkman published a post on IPKat titled Are FRAND-disputes too complex for PI proceedings?, discussing a recent Dutch case in which the court denied Sisvel a preliminary injunction against Xiaomi for the alleged infringement of a FRAND-committed SEP or SEPs.  Sisvel has another action pending in the U.K., in which it is seeking determination of a global rate.

5.  Rik Lambert also has an informative post on Kluwer about the Sisvel v. Xiaomi litigation.