The Advocate General Whatelet holds that the fact that a company owns a standard-essential patent does not necessarily mean that it holds a dominant position (Huawei / ZTE)

KEYWORDS
Reference

CJUE, AG Opinion, Huawei Technologies / ZTE , C-170/13, 20 November 2014

Huawei vs. ZTE - The Advocate General Has Spoken* Background On April 5, 2013, the Landgericht Düsseldorf (a German regional court) referred a set of questions relating to injunctive relief over standard-essential patents (“SEPs”) to the European Court of Justice (“ECJ”) in connection with a patent dispute between Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd (“Huawei”) and ZTE Corp. and ZTE Deutschland GmbH (collectively “ZTE”). This lawsuit was originally brought by Huawei in 2011, relating to an alleged infringement by ZTE of a patent owned by Huawei and declared to be essential in the LTE standard developed by the European Telecommunications Standards Institute (“ETSI”). On November 20, 2014, the Advocate General (“AG”) issued his Opinion on this matter, in which it was pointed out that the ECJ is called

Access to this article is restricted to subscribers

Already Subscribed? Sign-in

Access to this article is restricted to subscribers.

Read one article for free

Sign-up to read this article for free and discover our services.

 

PDF Version

Authors

  • AnJie Broad Law (Beijing)
    China 39 contributions 12076 visits
  • AnJie Broad Law (Beijing)
    China 1 contribution 386 visits

Quotation

Hao Zhan, Wan Jia, The Advocate General Whatelet holds that the fact that a company owns a standard-essential patent does not necessarily mean that it holds a dominant position (Huawei / ZTE), 20 November 2014, e-Competitions November 2014, Art. N° 70594

Visites 386

All issues

  • Latest News issue 
  • All News issues
  • Latest Special issue 
  • All Special issues