메뉴 건너뛰기
.. 내서재 .. 알림
소속 기관/학교 인증
인증하면 논문, 학술자료 등을  무료로 열람할 수 있어요.
한국대학교, 누리자동차, 시립도서관 등 나의 기관을 확인해보세요
(국내 대학 90% 이상 구독 중)
로그인 회원가입 고객센터 ENG
주제분류

추천
검색

논문 기본 정보

자료유형
학술저널
저자정보
저널정보
한국경영법률학회 경영법률 경영법률 제25권 제1호
발행연도
2014.1
수록면
511 - 546 (36page)

이용수

표지
📌
연구주제
📖
연구배경
🔬
연구방법
🏆
연구결과
AI에게 요청하기
추천
검색

초록· 키워드

오류제보하기
Standard setting organizations (SSOs) often require SSO members, prior to adoption of a standard, to agree to license any standard- essential patents (SEPs) on “fair, reasonable, and nondiscriminatory” (FRAND) terms. This article has presented an overview of the law of contracts, patent remedies, and competition as they relate to the question of whether courts should enjoin the infringement of FRAND-encumbered SEPs. Recourse to to injunctive relief is a legitimate remedy for the infringement of a patent in all significant jurisdictions, irrespective of whether the patent is standard essential or not and irrespective of whether a FRAND-commitment has been given. But in nearly all jurisdictions that had to deal with SEP-cases so far, courts have been evaluating the compliance with FRAND before issuing an injunction. The determination of whether an injunction is to be granted or not is inherently fact-specific. At present, objections to injunctions based on the law of contract and of patent remedies have made more headway in the United States than in some other countries, Germany in particular. On the other hand, while the competition-law approach has met with some limited success in the United States and some defeats in Germany, this approach seems to enjoy only a limited prospect of success in future U.S. cases at the same time that Europe may be shifting to an approach more favorable to prospective licensees. In addition, as a normative matter I have argued that courts generally should deny injunctions to SEP owners and should award ongoing royalties instead.

목차

등록된 정보가 없습니다.

참고문헌 (36)

참고문헌 신청

이 논문의 저자 정보

최근 본 자료

전체보기

댓글(0)

0