Huawei v ZTE Five Years After—Luxembourg Locuta Causa Finita?
Written By
Partner
Germany
I am a partner in competition law. I specialise in transactions, commercial disputes, IP, IT and compliance. My sector focus is on the automotive supply industry, tech & comms, consumer electronics and on regulated industries. I strive to add value to my client's businesses by providing legal advice that can be used to achieve measurable business objectives.
Very few judgements from the EU level have reshaped daily court practice like Huawei vs. ZTE did for standard-essential patent (‘SEP’) litigation. Five years after, the national courts have had ample opportunity to adjust and to advance their view on how to transpose the Court of Justice of the European Union’s (‘CJEU’) landmark decision.
Questions dealt with include most notably:
- Does every SEP necessarily confer dominance to its holder?
- How detailed does an infringement notice need to be, particularly if a portfolio license is sought after?
- When can the patent owner safely conclude that the user is an unwilling licensee and the seeking of an injunction thus justified?
- And, most importantly, how to determine a fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory (‘FRAND’) license offer.
This paper gives an overview of the current state of play and of the questions that (appear to) remain open todate.
This article was originally published by 'Oxford University Press - Journal of European Competition Law & Pracitice', 24 April 2020.
Latest insights
More Insights
The High Court decides: Does a dispute resolution clause in a settlement agreement supersede an earlier inconsistent dispute resolution clause in a prior contract?
3 minutes Apr 10 2025
Australia: Three wins in a row - Active Super to pay $10.5 million penalty in ASIC’s third greenwashing action
Apr 10 2025
UK product safety law update: Measuring up the Product Regulation and Metrology Bill
4 minutes Apr 09 2025