Accept Refuse

EUR-Lex Access to European Union law

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Document 62013CA0170

Case C-170/13: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 16 July 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Düsseldorf — Germany) — Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd v ZTE Corp., ZTE Deutschland GmbH (Competition — Article 102 TFEU — Undertaking holding a patent essential to a standard which has given a commitment, to the standardisation body, to grant third parties a licence for that patent on fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory terms (‘FRAND terms’) — Abuse of a dominant position — Actions for infringement — Action seeking a prohibitory injunction — Action seeking the recall of products — Action seeking the rendering of accounts — Action for damages — Obligations of the proprietor of a patent which is essential to a standard)

OJ C 302, 14.9.2015, p. 2–3 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

14.9.2015   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 302/2


Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 16 July 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Düsseldorf — Germany) — Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd v ZTE Corp., ZTE Deutschland GmbH

(Case C-170/13) (1)

((Competition - Article 102 TFEU - Undertaking holding a patent essential to a standard which has given a commitment, to the standardisation body, to grant third parties a licence for that patent on fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory terms (‘FRAND terms’) - Abuse of a dominant position - Actions for infringement - Action seeking a prohibitory injunction - Action seeking the recall of products - Action seeking the rendering of accounts - Action for damages - Obligations of the proprietor of a patent which is essential to a standard))

(2015/C 302/02)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht Düsseldorf

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd

Defendants: ZTE Corp., ZTE Deutschland GmbH

Operative part of the judgment

1.

Article 102 TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that the proprietor of a patent essential to a standard established by a standardisation body, which has given an irrevocable undertaking to that body to grant a licence to third parties on fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory (‘FRAND’) terms, does not abuse its dominant position, within the meaning of that article, by bringing an action for infringement seeking an injunction prohibiting the infringement of its patent or seeking the recall of products for the manufacture of which that patent has been used, as long as:

prior to bringing that action, the proprietor has, first, alerted the alleged infringer of the infringement complained about by designating that patent and specifying the way in which it has been infringed, and, secondly, after the alleged infringer has expressed its willingness to conclude a licensing agreement on FRAND terms, presented to that infringer a specific, written offer for a licence on such terms, specifying, in particular, the royalty and the way in which it is to be calculated, and

where the alleged infringer continues to use the patent in question, the alleged infringer has not diligently responded to that offer, in accordance with recognised commercial practices in the field and in good faith, this being a matter which must be established on the basis of objective factors and which implies, in particular, that there are no delaying tactics.

2.

Article 102 TFEU must be interpreted as not prohibiting, in circumstances such as those in the main proceedings, an undertaking in a dominant position and holding a patent essential to a standard established by a standardisation body, which has given an undertaking to the standardisation body to grant licences for that patent on FRAND terms, from bringing an action for infringement against the alleged infringer of its patent and seeking the rendering of accounts in relation to past acts of use of that patent or an award of damages in respect of those acts of use.


(1)  OJ C 215, 27.7.2013.


Top