Multi-Dimensional Approaches Towards New Technology : : Insights on Innovation, Patents and Competition.

• Author: Bharadwaj, Ashish.
• TeilnehmendeR: Devaiah, Vishwas H.; Gupta, Indranath.
• Place / Publishing House: Singapore : : Springer Singapore Pte. Limited,, 2018.; ©2018.
• Year of Publication: 2018
• Edition: 1st ed.
• Language: English
• Physical Description: 1 online resource (350 pages)

Table of Contents

Intro -- Acknowledgements -- Contents -- Editors and Contributors -- Introduction -- Law and Policy Dilemmas in Innovation Intensive Industries -- 1 Intellectual Property and Competition Law: Understanding the Interplay -- 1 Introduction -- 2 IP and Competition Law: Main Concerns and Misuses -- 2.1 Patents and Competition Law -- 2.1.1 Abuse of Market Power via Refusal to License and Seeking Injunctive Relief by SEPs: 'Smartphone Patent Wars' -- 2.1.2 Abuse of Dominance via Misuse of Regulatory Procedures -- 2.1.3 Abuse of Dominance via Excessive Pricing -- 2.1.4 Anticompetitive Agreements: Restricting Competitors' Entry to the Market or 'Paying off Competition' -- 2.2 Trademarks and Competition Law -- 2.3 Copyright and Competition Law -- 3 Conclusion -- 2 The Interaction Between Intellectual Property Law and Competition Law in the EU: Necessity of Convergent Interpretation with the Principles Established by the Relevant Case Law -- 1 Introduction -- 2 The Adequacy (or Inadequacy?) of the European Commission's Soft Law -- 2.1 Main Provisions in the Horizontal Cooperation Guidelines 2011/C 11/01: The Rule (IPR Are Pro-competitive) and the Exceptions -- 2.2 Preconditions for Pro-competitive Standard-Setting -- 2.2.1 The Central Issue of Access to the Standard -- 2.2.2 The Significance of Market Shares of the Goods or Services Based on the Standard -- 2.2.3 Result of Standardization Agreements -- 2.3 Main Provisions in the Commission Notice Guidelines on the Application of Article 101 TFEU to Technology Transfer Agreements -- 2.3.1 The Principle of Union Exhaustion -- 2.3.2 No Immunity from Competition Law Intervention -- 2.4 The Necessity of Considering the Guidance in Applying Article [102 TFEU] to Abusive Exclusionary Conduct by Dominant Undertakings -- 3 The Dynamic Relationship Between Antitrust Law and Intellectual Property Law.

3.1 The US and EU Convergence Regarding the Exercise of SEPs -- 3.2 The Commission's Practice: The Motorola and Samsung Decisions as Basic Examples -- 3.3 Did the European Case Law Follow the Commission's Approach? -- 3.3.1 Assessment of the Case Huawei/ZTE (C-170/2013) and Criticism -- 3.3.2 Results and Consequences of the CJEU's Decision in Huawei/ZTE Case -- 3.3.3 Unanswered Questions -- 4 Conclusion: The Forthcoming Guidance-Should We Expect Undesirable Surprises? -- Acknowledgements -- Disclosure -- 3 The Relevance of Standardization in a Future Competitive India and the Role of Policy Makers, Antitrust Authorities and Courts to Promote it -- 1 Introduction -- 2 Mobile Communications -- 2.1 Complex Telecom System: Air-Interface and Backhaul -- 3 Benefits of Standardization -- 4 Good Faith Negotiations v Hold-out Behavior: Recent Case-Law -- 5 Industry Best Practices and the Role of Injunctions -- 5.1 'Access for All' Against 'License to All' -- 5.2 Use-Based Licensing v Smallest Saleable Patent Practicing Unit (SSPPU) -- 5.3 Portfolio as Welfare Enhancing -- 5.4 The Role of Injunctions -- 5.5 Enhanced Damages for Unwilling Licensees -- 6 Royalty Stacking-A Unicorn that Does not Exist -- 7 Price Differentiation and Economic Efficiencies -- 8 Antitrust Considerations -- 9 Conclusion -- Disclosure -- 4 The Role of the European Commission in the Development of the ETSI IPR Policy and the Nature of FRAND in Standardization -- 1 Introduction -- 2 European Union's Initiative -- 3 Setting up of ETSI -- 4 ETSI's IPR Policy -- 5 Conclusion -- 5 All Good Things Mustn't Come to an End: Reigniting the Debate on Patent Policy and Standard Setting -- 1 Introduction -- 2 Importance of Standards Setting -- 3 IEEE-SA 2015 IPR Policy Change and the WiFi Standard -- 3.1 Importance of 802.11 (The WiFi Standard).

3.2 Developments Leading to the IEEE-SA's IPR Policy Change -- 4 Key Changes and Reactions to the IPR Policy Amendments -- 4.1 Key Changes to the IEEE IPR Policy -- 4.1.1 Royalty Rate -- 4.1.2 Injunctive Relief -- 4.1.3 Reciprocal Licensing -- 4.2 Major Reactions to the IPR Policy Changes -- 5 Policy Implications and the Post 2015 Era at IEEE -- 6 Shift in US Antitrust Enforcement vis-à-vis SSO IPR Policies -- 7 Conclusion -- Acknowledgements -- Disclosure -- Evolving Jurisprudence in Standard Essential Patents -- 6 Interpreting the 'FRAND' in FRAND Licensing: Licensing and Competition Law Ramifications of the 2017 Unwired Planet v Huawei UK High Court Judgements -- 1 Introduction -- 2 What Led to the Unwired Planet Decisions? -- 2.1 A Brief History of Unwired Planet -- 2.2 Commencement of Licensing Campaign by Unwired Planet -- 2.3 Failure of Licensing and Commencement of Litigation -- 3 The Unwired Planet Judgements: What Do They Mean and What Do They Add? -- 3.1 The 5 April 2017 Judgement -- 3.2 The 7 June 2017 Judgement -- 3.3 FRAND-New Guidance from the Unwired Judgement -- 3.3.1 'FRAND' Means Worldwide -- 3.3.2 FRAND-Top-Down and Comparable License Analyses: Is One Superior to the Other? -- 3.3.3 The Meaning of FRAND in Light of Evolving Standards -- 4 Unwired Planet's Significance Going Forward: Points for Consideration -- 4.1 FRAND Means Worldwide -- 4.2 FRAND Should Be a Range, not a Fixed Number -- 4.3 Transparency Is the Key to Meaningful Application of FRAND -- 5 Conclusion -- Disclosure -- 7 Evolving Huawei Framework: SEPs and Grant of Injunctions -- 1 Introduction -- 2 EC Communication Paper to the European Parliament -- 3 Steps Prior to Granting Injunctions in SEP Cases -- 3.1 The Huawei Guidelines -- 3.2 Implementation of Huawei Guidelines in Subsequent SEP Cases -- 3.3 The Judgement in Unwired Planet -- 4 Conclusion -- Disclosure.

8 The Development and Theoretical Controversy of SEP Licensing Practices in China -- 1 Introduction -- 2 Problem with SEP Licensing -- 3 SEP Licensing Practice and Regulations in China -- 3.1 Guidelines and Judicial Practice Related to SEP Licensing -- 3.2 Injunction Issues for Failure of SEP Licensing -- 3.3 Negotiation Process of SEP Licensing -- 3.4 Royalty Issues in SEP Licensing -- 4 Solution to SEP Licensing Lock-in Problems -- 5 Conclusion -- 9 Regulating Abuse of SEPs in Mobile Communications Market: Reviewing 1st and 2nd Qualcomm Cases in Korea -- 1 Introduction -- 2 Overview of the 1st and 2nd Qualcomm Cases -- 2.1 Overview of Qualcomm -- 2.2 Summary of the 1st Qualcomm Case -- 2.3 Summary of the 2nd Qualcomm Case -- 2.4 Background of the Cases -- 3 Conduct Types in Question -- 3.1 Conduct in 1st Case -- 3.1.1 Discrimination in Collecting Royalties -- 3.1.2 Conditional Rebates on Modem Chipsets and RF Chips -- 3.1.3 Imposition of Royalties Even After Expiration of Patents -- 3.2 Conduct in 2nd Case -- 3.2.1 Refusing or Restricting to License SEPs to Rival Chipset Makers -- 3.2.2 Linking Chipset Supply with Patent License with Handset Makers -- 3.2.3 Imposing Unfair and Unreasonable Licensing Terms -- 3.3 Relationship Between Conduct Types of Two Qualcomm Cases -- 3.4 Expected Effects on Qualcomm' Business Model -- 4 Some Competition Law Issues -- 4.1 Issue of Defining Relevant Markets -- 4.2 Determining Whether FRAND Commitment Is Violated or Evaded -- 4.3 Competition Law Assessment on FRAND Commitment -- 4.4 Theories and establishment of Competitive Harm -- 4.4.1 Theories of Competitive Harm -- 4.4.2 Extent of Proving Competitive Harm -- 5 Comparison with Other Jurisdictions -- 5.1 Korea in Comparison with Japan -- 5.2 Korea in Comparison with China -- 5.3 Korea in Comparison with US: Conduct Types -- 6 Conclusion -- Disclosure.

10 Regulating Standard Essential Patents in Implementer-Oriented Countries: Insights from India and Japan -- 1 Introduction -- 2 Indian Cases and Their Background -- 2.1 Overview of the SEP Cases in India -- 2.1.1 Global SEP Owners v Local SEP Implementers -- 2.1.2 Litigations from Indian SEP Holders -- 2.1.3 Discussions on Case Laws -- 2.2 Adjudication Process/Legal Framework in India -- 2.3 Recent Policy Developments in India -- 2.3.1 DIPP Discussion Paper on SEPs (2016) -- 2.3.2 TRAI Discussion Paper on SEPs (2017) -- 3 Japanese Policy Changes and their Background -- 3.1 Legal Framework in Japan -- 3.2 Cases Over SEPs -- 3.2.1 Apple v Samsung Tokyo District Court Decision and IP High Court Decision -- 3.2.2 One Blue Case -- 3.3 Amendment of Guideline on Antimonopoly Law -- 3.4 Intellectual Property Dispute Resolution System Review Committee -- 3.5 Intellectual Property System Study Group for the 4th Industrial Revolution -- 3.6 Recent Policy Developments in Japan -- 3.6.1 Intellectual Property Strategic Program 2017 -- 3.6.2 Patent System Subcommittee of Industrial Structure Council -- 4 Conclusion -- Acknowledgements -- Disclosure -- Perspectives from Indian Competition and Patent Law -- 11 Predatory Pricing in Platform Competition: Economic Theory and Indian Cases -- 1 Introduction -- 2 Traditional Theories of Predatory Pricing and the Chicago Critique -- 3 The Game Theoretic Counter-Critique -- 4 The Indian Legal Framework -- 5 Platform Competition -- 6 The Radio Taxi Wars -- 7 Conclusion -- Postscript -- 12 Competition Law and Standard Essential Patent (SEP) in India: A Few Critical Issues to Ponder -- 1 Introduction -- 2 Dominance and Standard Essential Patents -- 3 Abuse of Dominance -- 4 Conclusion -- 13 Interface Between Antitrust Law and Intellectual Property in the Payment Systems Market in India -- 1 Introduction.

2 Interoperability and the Functioning of UPI.