Right here at Philips (Philips) withTCLWhen companies fight over standard essential patents, As a standard-setting body, European Telecommunications Standardization Association (ETSI) Caught up in the dispute. Although the main dispute has been resolved, butETSIHas struggled to recoup its costs. The Paris Court of Appeal rejected the request, It sets a precedent for the resolution of standard-essential patent disputes that may arise in France in the future.

The decision of the Paris Court of Appeal overturned the results of the court of first instance concerning the allocation of costs. The really decisive issue is France "Code of civil procedure" The first700Bar and "ETSIRules of procedure" The first18article2Whether the clause applies to the cost commitment.

Although the Paris Court of Justice2020The ruling was based on the former, But the Court of Appeal now believes, "ETSIRules of procedure" The contractual obligations under the contract shall serve as the corresponding guidelines. merely, The court of second instance also rejected itETSIClaim of, The reason is the lack of sufficient evidence.

From England to France

The conflict began when Philips, a Dutch electronics group, sued in BritainTCL. Philips accused the Chinese company of infringing two of its standard-essential patents. Philips' main goal is to get the British High Court to decide on its wholeUMTSandLTEGlobal equity in patent portfolios, Reasonable and non-discriminatory (FRAND) rate.

however, TCLChallenged the jurisdiction of the English courts. The Chinese company argues, On account ofETSIIt's near Antibes in southern France, The court in Paris should have jurisdiction. therefore, In response to a request made by Philips in the UK, TCLin2019At the beginning of the year, the Paris Court of Justice ruled against the Dutch company andETSIFiled a lawsuit.

This isETSIFor the first time, it faces a lawsuit from one of its European members. As one of the three major standards organizations in Europe, ETSIStandards have been developed for information and communication technology.

Rules of procedure at its core

TCLAppeal toETSIAs a standard provider should ensure that Philips complies with its basisFRANDLicense commitment. The Chinese company didETSIRules of procedure. According to the above rules, Those members who do not comply may be punished.

On the other hand, ETSIIt emphasizes its own neutrality, And asked the court to exclude him from the proceedings. ETSIconsider, As an independent organization, It will not interfere in legal disputes between members. On the basis ofETSIStatement given, The organization is only responsible for creating the contractual framework for the relevant standards.

Delayed by the pandemic

At the same time, Aim atTCLJurisdictional action brought in France, Philips responded at the Paris Court of Justice. Lie in2020years2In a ruling made in October, The judge rejected all of Philips' motions, And claimed to be concernedFRANDThe question is jurisdictional.

itETSIThe question of their role in the dispute, The judge held that, In principleTCLrightETSIAnd the claims filed by Philips are sufficiently relevant. The court of Justice of France "Code of civil procedure" The first700Strip command Philips toETSIpayment2Ten thousand euros, And ready to lie2020years6A hearing was held in OctoberETSIThe specific level of participation. however, Due to the epidemic, The hearing did not take place as scheduled.

The party responsible for the costs

2020The end of the year, Philips andTCLReached an agreement, merelyETSIWas not involved in the negotiations. 2021The beginning of the year, TCLThe original request was withdrawn, As a result, Philips withdrew its appeal against the jurisdiction order. After withdrawing the original request, Order of the Court of Justice of ParisTCLOn the basis of "ETSIRules of procedure" The first18article2Style and France "Code of civil procedure" The first700strip-orientedETSIpayment2Ten thousand euros.

On the other hand, After withdrawing the appeal, The Paris Court of Appeal ruled that Philips andTCLBear the costs they incur. meanwhile, The court ordered Philips toETSIPay the costs incurred in connection with the appeal, and2Ten thousand euros.

ETSIAsk for more compensation

The above judgment madeETSII took it upon myselfTCLPart of the costs incurred when the lawsuit was originally filed. therefore, The standardization body said Philips andTCLThe amount of compensation paid is not coveredTCLThe costs incurred in the initial filing of the lawsuit, And hope based on "ETSIRules of procedure" The first18article2The paragraph maintains its claim, Immediate commandTCLPay it approx12. 610, 000 euros in compensation.

In accordance with the above provisions, If a member "Legal proceedings have been initiated against the association, And the Association reasonably bore costs for properly defending itself against such actions, Unless, then, the member ultimately prevails in such proceedings, Otherwise, the Member shall reimburse the Association for all such expenses" .

This includes "Any reasonable costs and expenses incurred by the Association as a result of proceedings or disputes brought by its members" , Such asETSIAttorney's fees and expenses, Investigate or discover expenses (Expert fees included) And the internal costs of the association.

Lack of data

In a ruling made just before Christmas, The Paris Court of Appeal rejected itETSIRequest of. The judges held that, This case should apply "ETSIRules of procedure" The first18article2paragraph, Not France "Code of civil procedure" The first700article. The former establishes full repaymentETSIThe principle of incurred costs.

however, According to the court, This standardization body is not in "ETSIRules of procedure" The first18article2It is sufficiently demonstrated that reasonable and appropriate costs have been incurred.

In addition, The presiding judge also noted, TCLAnd Philips didn't claim it rightETSIPass any judgment. therefore, And they came to the conclusion that, ETSIThe amount claimed lacks sufficient data, And it's not replicable.

At Philips and Xiaomi (Xiaomi) Between similar disputes, The question did not arise. ETSIGeneral Counsel Christian．Loyo (Christian Loyau) expression: "As far as the dispute between Philips and Xiaomi goes, After the two sides reached a settlement, Members according to our "ETSIRules of procedure" The first18article2Section fulfilled onETSIThe obligation of. "

At present, ETSIIt also involved Philips and Thales (Thales) Dispute between, The dispute is still pending. (Be compiled fromwww. juve-patent. com)

TRANSLATORS: Liu Peng　proofread: Wu Xian



　　disclaimer: This network reprint or compile the original articles are from the network, Does not represent the views of this website or confirm the authenticity of its content. If the source is mislabeled or the copyright of the article is involved, Please contact us, This website will be corrected in due course, delete, thank you.