LoginSubscribe Now
International In-house Counsel Journal Logo
International In-house Counsel Journal Logo
  • Home
  • Business Sectors
  • Areas of Law
  • Editorial Board
  • Write a Paper
  • Subscribe
  • Books
  • Reports
  • Back Issues
  • Terms and Conditions
  • Cookie Policy
  • Privacy Policy
  • PLS LogoCopyright & permissions
© 2026 International In-house Counsel Journal Ltd. | ISSN 1754-0607 | Picture Credits: Freepix, Unsplash and by permission of the authors
Back to library search

Requirements in SEP License Negotiations - Substantiating a FRAND Offer – The Relation Between Confidentiality Issues and Providing Evidence for its Own Fair and Reasonable Position

December 2018LicensingTelecommunications

Abstract

In its Huawei/ZTE decision of 16 July 2015 (Case C-170/13) concerning injunction requests based on standard essential patents (SEPs) in litigation, the ECJ provided guidance in relation to the appropriate behaviour of an SEP owner and a potential (and willing) licensee. The competent courts of the EU Member States have been in the process of applying the Huawei/ZTE principles to individual patent infringement cases. In particular, developments have occurred in the main patent litigation jurisdictions Germany and the UK. This case law is subject to further developments with respect the mutual obligations of the involved parties. Contrary to the situation in a “normal” patent dispute, a SEP is deemed to be necessary for use in a certain technical standard context (often electronics or telecommunications), i.e., for participating in a certain market. It follows that work around or design around solutions of true SEPs achieving same or similar results are not possible, making the patentee dominant in licensing that solution. Because of that, the SEP owner is generally obliged to license its SEP on fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory conditions (FRAND). Only if the user does not accept such a license, the patent owner can insist on injunctions in case the SEP is used. In this context, case law requires parties to meet certain reciprocal obligations when discussing licensing issues. This relates in particular to the respective offers and counter-offers. Courts in the UK (Unwired Planet decision) and Germany have opined on criteria for “fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory” offers. Comparable and existing license agreements with other parties have been accepted as substantial means for guidance. This has led to criticism. Subsequently, the involved interests of parties and the public – confidentiality vs. transparency - are discussed and balanced.

Subscribe to reador
PLS Logo Copyright & permissions

Author

Clemens Heusch

Head of European Litigation, Nokia , Germany

Related Papers

Cellular Standards in the IoT: A Brief Practical Guide for Licensing Negotiations
Global cellular standards (e.g., 4G/LTE and 5G/NR) are a key driver of the advancing digital transformation of the economy and society. In recent decades, open standardization in the telecommunications field...Read more
Portrait image of Spyros Makris
Spyros Makris
IPR Policy Manager, Ericsson GmbH, Germany
Requirements in SEP License Negotiations - Substantiating a FRAND Offer – The Relation Between Confidentiality Issues and Providing Evidence for its Own Fair and Reasonable Position
In its Huawei/ZTE decision of 16 July 2015 (Case C-170/13) concerning injunction requests based on standard essential patents (SEPs) in litigation, the ECJ provided guidance in relation to the appropriate...Read more
Portrait image of Florian Schmidt-Bogatzky
Florian Schmidt-Bogatzky
Attorney, Bird & Bird, Germany
Telecommunication Concessions and Licenses in the Dominican Republic
As the world becomes more globalized, the need to expand, to explore new horizons becomes inevitable. Currently, consumers are more aware of new products, latest technologies, gadgets, business... Consumers are...Read more
Portrait image of Estíbaliz Diez
Estíbaliz Diez
Director Legal & Regulatory, Onemax, Dominican Republic
The New Era of Acquisition Finance in India: Opportunities and Legal Challenges Under RBI’s Revised Framework
In February 2026, the Reserve Bank of India issued the RBI (Commercial Banks – Credit Facilities) Amendment Directions, 2026, formally notifying a landmark regulatory shift that permits scheduled commercial banks...Read more
Portrait image of Prateek Sethi
Prateek Sethi
Associate Vice President - Legal, Bharti Airtel Limited, India