1. Enrico Bonadio and Dyuti Pandya recently published a post on the Kluwer Patent Blog titled China’s Supreme People Court decides FRAND dispute in ACT v Oppo. The post links to several other sources discussing the SPC’s December 2023 decision in this case, previously noted here, including MA Butian, Second-instance judgment in ACT v Oppo sheds light on comparable agreements and how to find fault in SEP licensing negotiations, Global Competition Review, Feb. 1, 2024; AFD China Intellectual Property Law Office, SPC Awards ACT over 15.39 Million Yuan in OPPO Patent Dispute, Rejecting its 342 Million Yuan Claim, China IP Magazine, Feb. 21, 2024; Olivia Rafferty, Exclusive: China’s Supreme People’s Court hands down first ever SEP infringement decisions in parallel Oppo and Vivo disputes, IAM, Jan. 16, 2024 (behind a paywall); Dragon Wang, Bing Wu, Yannan Li & Xiaolin Wang, Chinese Standard Essential Patents (SEPs) Licensing Negotiations and Dispute Resolution Practice – A Review of the ACT Lawsuit Against OPPO for Standard Essential Patent Infringement, SITAO Insight, Feb. 1, 2024; Christine You & Emma Ren, China's SEP case update - ACT v OPPO, Vivo, Bird & Bird, Feb. 27, 2024. Long story short, there were six FRAND-committed SEPs in suit, and the court set a global FRAND rate of US$0.008 per unit amounting to RMB15,390,527 (about US$2.12 million).
2. China Patent & Trademarks No. 1, 2024, features three articles (presumably all in press before the SPC’s ACT v. Oppo decision) on FRAND topics: Lv Lingrui, Studies on FRAND Commitments to SEP Licensing; Zhang Guangliang & Zheng Bang, Antitrust Regulation of SEP Abuse—Notion, Classification and Suggestions; and Gao Jiajia, Studies on Injunctive Relief for SEP. The last of these goes into some detail concerning the proportionality concept, citing other Chinese scholarship for the proposition that proportionality involves four sub-principles, namely objective legitimacy, suitability, necessity and equity.
No comments:
Post a Comment