首页> 外文期刊>European intellectual property review >Patent Injunctions, Standard Essential Patents and Patents Essential to de Facto Standards: European, German and Korean Perspectives
【24h】

Patent Injunctions, Standard Essential Patents and Patents Essential to de Facto Standards: European, German and Korean Perspectives

机译:专利禁令,标准基本专利和专利对于事实上标准至关重要:欧洲,德语和韩国观点

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
       

摘要

Patent injunctions against unlicensed defendants who implement a patented technology standard may produce exclusionary effects that are anti-competitive. Should it make a difference whether the patent in question (1) involves a technology standard developed under the auspices of a standard-setting organisation (i.e. a standard essential patent or SEP); or (2) covers an invention that is incorporated into technology standard without going through this standard-setting process (i.e. a patent that is essential to a de facto standard or "de facto essential patent")? The potential anti-competitive effects are the same in both categories of patents, yet the legal frameworks of jurisdictions that have considered these legal issues appear to differentiate between them. This article examines the validity of distinguishing between these two groups of patented standards, using examples from various jurisdictions to illustrate the bifurcated approach that has been taken towards placing limitations on the patent holder's freedom to seek injunctive relief.
机译:针对实施专利技术标准的无牌被告的专利禁令可能产生抗竞争性的排他性效应。如果问题(1)的专利是涉及在标准制定组织的主持下开发的技术标准(即标准基本专利或SEP);或(2)覆盖被并入技术标准,而无需通过该标准制定过程持续一个发明(即专利也就是事实上的标准或“事实上必要专利”必要的)?两种类别的专利潜在的反竞争效果是相同的,但考虑这些法律问题的司法管辖区的法律框架似乎似乎区分了它们。本文介绍了区分这两组专利标准的有效性,使用各种司法管辖区的实例来说明已经朝着专利持有人的自由施加禁令救济的限制的分叉方法。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号