英国高等法院对标准必要专利实施者颁发禁令
这是大岭为您分享IP英文的第203天：
后附Google翻译仅供参考。
判决书原文请点击文末“阅读原文”查看。
High Court Grants Injunction Against Standard Essential Patent Implementer
10 April 2019 | J A Kemp
The English High Court has granted an injunction (decision here) against an implementer of a Standard Essential Patent which had been ‘holding out’ and refusing to engage constructively in the RAND (reasonable and non-discriminatory) process. Mr Justice Carr had held, in a judgment dated 11 March available here, EP 1 453 268 (the ‘268 patent) to be valid, essential and infringed by the defendants’ products. There was then a hearing, again before Mr Justice Carr, on 18 March to determine what order should be made by the Court against the defendants. The ‘268 patent expires on 25th June 2019 and Zyxel (the first defendant) argued that an injunction prohibiting sale of infringing products would be disproportionate and that it should not be granted, or alternatively that it should be stayed or include a carve-out relating to three pending orders.
TQ Delta (the claimant) argued that Zyxel had purported to be a willing licensee (therefore taking the protection of TQ Delta’s RAND undertaking) but had gamed the system and constantly changed its position on whether it was prepared to take a licence on whatever terms the Court determines to be RAND. By the time of the hearing Zyxel’s position was that it did not seek a licence, given that the ‘268 patent is due to expire in June this year. The question was whether Zyxel should also be able to avoid an injunction, having made that election.
The judge held that Zyxel’s actions were a clear case of “hold-out”. Zyxel had refused to pay any royalties since 2013, when TQ Delta first approached them, nor paid royalties to any other patent holder in respect of any Standard Essential Patents. If the injunction were not granted then it would enable Zyxel to benefit from its strategy of hold-out and would amount to a compulsory licence by the Court in circumstances where Zyxel had elected not to enforce the RAND undertaking in respect of the ‘268 patent. The judge held that this was wrong in principle and therefore granted the injunction with no stay.
Zyxel then argued that three pending product orders should be carved out from the scope of the injunction. The judge refused to grant the carve-outs on the basis that Zyxel had provided no evidence that the customers for whom those orders were destined would be inconvenienced, and the judge was unable to assess the extent of any prejudice to Zyxel if these orders were not fulfilled.
In English proceedings the judge has discretion whether to grant an injunction or not. There have been some recent decisions (here, for example) in which an injunction has not been granted for public policy reasons, but this decision returns to the usual practice which is to grant injunctive relief for patent infringement.
Google翻译：
高等法院对标准必要专利实施者的禁令
2019年3月28日 | J A Kemp
英国高等法院已对一项标准必要专利的实施者发出禁令（此处作出决定），该专利一直“坚持”并拒绝建设性地参与兰德（合理和非歧视）程序。大法官卡尔举行了，在3月11日可判断这里，EP 1 453 268（'268专利）是被告产品有效，必要和侵权的。3月18日，法官卡尔先生再次举行听证会，以确定法院应对被告作出何种命令。'268专利于2019年6月25日到期，Zyxel（第一被告）辩称，禁止销售侵权产品的禁令将不成比例，不应授予，或者应该停止或包括剥离相关到三个挂单。
TQ Delta（索赔人）认为Zyxel声称是一个自愿的被许可人（因此保护了TQ Delta的RAND承诺），但他们已经对该系统进行了游戏，并不断改变其对是否准备以任何条款获得许可的立场。法院判定为兰德。到听证会时，Zyxel的立场是它没有寻求许可证，因为'268专利将于今年6月到期。问题是，在做出选举之后，Zyxel是否也应该能够避免禁令。
法官认为，Zyxel的行为是“坚持”的明确案例。自2013年TQ Delta第一次接近它们以来，Zyxel拒绝支付任何版税，也没有就任何标准必要专利向任何其他专利持有人支付版税。如果没有授予禁令，那么它将使Zyxel能够从其搁置战略中受益，并且在Zyxel选择不执行关于'268专利的RAND承诺的情况下，将构成法院的强制许可。法官认为原则上这是错误的，因此授予禁令，不予停留。
然后，Zyxel认为应该从禁令的范围中划出三个待定的产品订单。法官拒绝批准剥离，理由是Zyxel没有提供任何证据证明这些订单注定的客户会带来不便，而且如果这些订单不是，则法官无法评估对Zyxel的任何偏见的程度。实现。
在英国诉讼程序中，法官可以自行决定是否批准禁令。最近有一些决定（例如这里）由于公共政策原因而没有给予禁令，但这一决定又回到了通常的做法，即为专利侵权提供禁令救济。
Source:https://www.jakemp.com/en/news/high-court-grants-injunction-against-standard-essential-patent-implementer
--End--
新课推荐：
如何提高专利撰写、答复、复审、无效的水平呢？最好的方法就是研读专利复审、无效典型案例。
大岭先生将通过24节视频课程，带领大家读懂复审委最新重磅作品、专利工作者、专利代理师必读之作《以案说法-专利复审、无效典型案例指引》，夯实对专利审查指南的理解，通透的学习一遍专利申请、复审和无效的实务要点。
5月1日开课，每周更新一节课，每节课50分钟左右，支持无限次回听。
采用留言、直播形式答疑。
早鸟价260元，限前200名，扫描下图二维码抢课吧^_^