Compulsory licensing of standard-essential patents and injunctive relief as abuse of dominant position in violation of Article 102 TFEU

When a dominant undertaking holding a standard-essential patent uses its exclusive right to the IP to seek injunctions against those wishing to produce either de jure or de facto standard compliant products, it creates a conflict between the exclusive right to the use of the IP on the one hand and the possible abuse of dominance due to the exclusionary conduct on the other. The aim of the thesis is to focus on the issues concerning abuse of dominance in violation of Article 102 TFEU when the holder of the standard-essential patent seeks an injunction against a would-be licensee. The thesis is mainly based on the most recent ECJ case law in Huawei and the Commission’s recent decisions in Samsung and Motorola. The case law in Europe prior to those decisions was mainly focused on the German case law from Orange Book Standard which provided IP holders great leverage due to the almost automatic granting of injunctions against infringers. The ECJ in Huawei set out the requirements for when a de jure standard-essential patent holder would not be violating Article 102 TFEU when seeking an injunction, requiring that negotiations in good faith must take place prior to the seeking of the injunction and that all offers must comply with FRAND terms, thus limiting the scope of case law derived from Orange Book Standard in Germany. The ECJ chose not to follow all of the reasoning the Commission had laid out in Samsung and Motorola which provided a more licensee-friendly approach on the matter, but rather chose a compromise between the IP holder friendly German case law and the Commission’s decisions. However, the ECJ did not disclose how FRAND terms themselves should be interpreted, but rather left it for the national courts to decide. Furthermore, the thesis strongly argues that Huawei did not change the fact that only vertically integrated IP holders who have made a FRAND declaration are subject to the terms laid out in Huawei, thus leaving non-practicing entities such as patent trolls and entities that have not made a FRAND declaration outside its scope. The resulting conclusion from the thesis is that while the ECJ in Huawei presented new exceptional circumstances for when an IP holder could be abusing its dominant position when it seeks an injunction, it still left many more questions answered, such as the meaning of FRAND and whether deception in giving a FRAND declaration is prohibited under Article 102 TFEU or not.

PROTECTING TRADE SECRETS IN LITIGATION - THE IMPACT OF ARTICLE 9 OF THE EU TRADE SECRET DIRECTIVE ESPECIALLY ON FINNISH LAW

In November 2013 the European Commission issued the “Proposal for a Directive on the European Parliament and of the Council on the protection of undisclosed know-how and business information (trade secrets) against their unlawful acquisition, use and disclosure” (referred to as “TSD”). The TSD offers minimum harmonisation and aims at promoting sharing of knowledge, and the exploitation of innovations on the Internal Market. The European Parliament adopted the TSD on April 14, 2016 and the EU Member States will have two years to implement it. The TSD includes a harmonised definition of a trade secret that builds on the definition provided in Article 39 of the TRIPS Agreement. Moreover, it also ensures the freedom of expression and information and the protection of whistle-blowers. Appropriate means of actions and remedies against unlawful acquisition, use and disclosure of trade secrets are also included, such as provisional and pecuniary measures, injunctions and corrective measures or allocation of damages. This study examines the protection of trade secrets in the course of litigation regulated in Article 9 of the TSD. Currently, the protection of trade secrets within the EU is fragmented especially in this regard, which makes companies reluctant to resort to litigation when a trade secret has unlawfully been misappropriated or it is suspected that a trade secret is being misused. The regulations in Article 9 expand only to the hearing in court. Such protection is welcomed and a step in the right direction. However, in my study I have found that in order for the protection to be sufficient there is a need to further establish measures to protect trade secrets during the entire process, from the filing of the claim to the end when the judgement is given. Consequently, I also discuss different measures that could be used to strengthen the protection of trade secrets before the hearing in court, as evidence are gathered.

Protecting Trade Secrets In Litigation The Impact of Article 9 of The EU Trade Secret Directive Especially on Finnish Law

In November 2013 the European Commission issued the “Proposal for a Directive on the European Parliament and of the Council on the protection of undisclosed know-how and business information (trade secrets) against their unlawful acquisition, use and disclosure” (referred to as “TSD”). The TSD offers minimum harmonisation and aims at promoting sharing of knowledge, and the exploitation of innovations on the Internal Market. The European Parliament adopted the TSD on April 14, 2016 and the EU Member States will have two years to implement it. The TSD includes a harmonised definition of a trade secret that builds on the definition provided in Article 39 of the TRIPS Agreement. Moreover, it also ensures the freedom of expression and information and the protection of whistle-blowers. Appropriate means of actions and remedies against unlawful acquisition, use and disclosure of trade secrets are also included, such as provisional and pecuniary measures, injunctions and corrective measures or allocation of damages. This study examines the protection of trade secrets in the course of litigation regulated in Article 9 of the TSD. Currently, the protection of trade secrets within the EU is fragmented especially in this regard, which makes companies reluctant to resort to litigation when a trade secret has unlawfully been misappropriated or it is suspected that a trade secret is being misused. The regulations in Article 9 expand only to the hearing in court. Such protection is welcomed and a step in the right direction. However, in my study I have found that in order for the protection to be sufficient there is a need to further establish measures to protect trade secrets during the entire process, from the filing of the claim to the end when the judgement is given. Consequently, I also discuss different measures that could be used to strengthen the protection of trade secrets before the hearing in court, as evidence are gathered.