Schieds- und Mediationsverfahren in Immaterialguterrechtsstreitigkeiten gewinnen an Popularitat, und das gilt besonders fur die FRAND-Lizenzierung von standardessentiellen Patenten. Gerichte und die EU-Kommission begegnen der alternativen Streitbeilegung in diesem Bereich sehr wohlwollend, erste Schiedsinstitutionen haben spezifisch zugeschnittene Regeln publiziert und mit den FRAND ADR Case Management Guidelines des Munich IP Dispute Resolution Forum liegt auch ein ausfuhrlicher Leitlinien-Vorschlag aus der Wissenschaft vor. Die digitale Transformation der Volkswirtschaften durfte die (okonomische) Bedeutung der SEP/FRAND-Lizenzierung weiter verstarken. Nichtsdestotrotz bedurfen grundlegende Rechtsfragen ebenso der Klarung wie strategische Entscheidungen der Verfahrensparteien im Einzelfall. Der vorliegende Beitrag adressiert im Schwerpunkt die besonders wichtigen Aspekte von SEP/FRAND-Schiedsverfahren, etwa deren zulassige Verfahrensgegenstande, Rechtswahlmoglichkeiten und anwendbares Verfahrensrecht, Abschluss und Ausgestaltung der Schiedsvereinbarung, (eingeschrankte) Vertraulichkeit, das Ineinandergreifen von staatlicher und Schiedsgerichtsbarkeit oder auch kartellrechtliche Hurden fur die Vollstreckbarerklarung nach dem New Yorker-Ubereinkommen. English Abstract: Mediation and arbitration in IP matters, in particular regarding the FRAND-licensing of standard-essential patents, become increasingly popular and the digitalization of the economy will make SEP/FRAND licensing ever more relevant. Courts and the EU Commission favor alternative dispute resolution (ADR) in this field, arbitral institutions start publishing specific rules, and the Munich IP Dispute Resolution Forum has worked out the first in-depth guidelines on SEP/FRAND arbitration. Nonetheless, a number of fundamental legal questions remain open and parties have to make complex strategy decisions when they think about entering into alternative dispute resolution on SEP/FRAND matters. This paper addresses, therefore, key aspects of SEP/FRAND ADR, including arbitrability, choice of law and applicable procedural rules, framing of the arbitration clause, (limited) confidentiality, combinations of state and alternative dispute resolution, and competition law challenges to the enforcement of arbitral awards under the New York Convention.
{"title":"Schiedsverfahren in SEP/FRAND-Streitigkeiten – Überblick und Kernprobleme","authors":"P. Picht","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.3266546","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.3266546","url":null,"abstract":"Schieds- und Mediationsverfahren in Immaterialguterrechtsstreitigkeiten gewinnen an Popularitat, und das gilt besonders fur die FRAND-Lizenzierung von standardessentiellen Patenten. Gerichte und die EU-Kommission begegnen der alternativen Streitbeilegung in diesem Bereich sehr wohlwollend, erste Schiedsinstitutionen haben spezifisch zugeschnittene Regeln publiziert und mit den FRAND ADR Case Management Guidelines des Munich IP Dispute Resolution Forum liegt auch ein ausfuhrlicher Leitlinien-Vorschlag aus der Wissenschaft vor. Die digitale Transformation der Volkswirtschaften durfte die (okonomische) Bedeutung der SEP/FRAND-Lizenzierung weiter verstarken. Nichtsdestotrotz bedurfen grundlegende Rechtsfragen ebenso der Klarung wie strategische Entscheidungen der Verfahrensparteien im Einzelfall. Der vorliegende Beitrag adressiert im Schwerpunkt die besonders wichtigen Aspekte von SEP/FRAND-Schiedsverfahren, etwa deren zulassige Verfahrensgegenstande, Rechtswahlmoglichkeiten und anwendbares Verfahrensrecht, Abschluss und Ausgestaltung der Schiedsvereinbarung, (eingeschrankte) Vertraulichkeit, das Ineinandergreifen von staatlicher und Schiedsgerichtsbarkeit oder auch kartellrechtliche Hurden fur die Vollstreckbarerklarung nach dem New Yorker-Ubereinkommen. \u0000English Abstract: Mediation and arbitration in IP matters, in particular regarding the FRAND-licensing of standard-essential patents, become increasingly popular and the digitalization of the economy will make SEP/FRAND licensing ever more relevant. Courts and the EU Commission favor alternative dispute resolution (ADR) in this field, arbitral institutions start publishing specific rules, and the Munich IP Dispute Resolution Forum has worked out the first in-depth guidelines on SEP/FRAND arbitration. Nonetheless, a number of fundamental legal questions remain open and parties have to make complex strategy decisions when they think about entering into alternative dispute resolution on SEP/FRAND matters. This paper addresses, therefore, key aspects of SEP/FRAND ADR, including arbitrability, choice of law and applicable procedural rules, framing of the arbitration clause, (limited) confidentiality, combinations of state and alternative dispute resolution, and competition law challenges to the enforcement of arbitral awards under the New York Convention.","PeriodicalId":237792,"journal":{"name":"Gewerblicher Rechtsschutz und Urheberrecht","volume":"7 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-10-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"125351662","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
In recent years, the national courts of the EU Member States, in an attempt to stem the flow of rampant online copyright infringement, have increasingly turned to the issuance of blocking injunctions against the intermediaries whose websites and networks are used by third parties to commit infringements. This article examines the legal framework in place at the EU level with regard to the legality of such injunctive orders, making a distinction between filtering measures, used to detect copyright infringements, and blocking measures, used to put an end to them. On the basis of that analysis, a detailed examination will be made of the latest CJEU ruling to apply this framework, Case C-314/12, UPC Telekabel Wien GmbH v Constantin Film Verleih GmbH on the lawfulness of open-ended blocking injunctions against internet access providers.
近年来，欧盟成员国的国家法院为了遏制网络版权侵权的泛滥，越来越多地转向对其网站和网络被第三方用于侵权的中介机构发布封锁禁令。本文考察了欧盟层面关于此类禁令命令合法性的法律框架，对用于检测版权侵权的过滤措施和用于终止侵权的阻止措施进行了区分。在此分析的基础上，将详细审查欧洲高等法院适用该框架的最新裁决，即C-314/12案，UPC Telekabel Wien GmbH诉Constantin Film Verleih GmbH，关于针对互联网接入提供商的开放式封锁禁令的合法性。
{"title":"Are Blocking Injunctions against ISPs Allowed in Europe? Copyright Enforcement in the Post-Telekabel Legal Landscape","authors":"C. Angelopoulos","doi":"10.1093/JIPLP/JPU136","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/JIPLP/JPU136","url":null,"abstract":"In recent years, the national courts of the EU Member States, in an attempt to stem the flow of rampant online copyright infringement, have increasingly turned to the issuance of blocking injunctions against the intermediaries whose websites and networks are used by third parties to commit infringements. This article examines the legal framework in place at the EU level with regard to the legality of such injunctive orders, making a distinction between filtering measures, used to detect copyright infringements, and blocking measures, used to put an end to them. On the basis of that analysis, a detailed examination will be made of the latest CJEU ruling to apply this framework, Case C-314/12, UPC Telekabel Wien GmbH v Constantin Film Verleih GmbH on the lawfulness of open-ended blocking injunctions against internet access providers.","PeriodicalId":237792,"journal":{"name":"Gewerblicher Rechtsschutz und Urheberrecht","volume":"39 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2014-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"127549575","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The CJEU's famous Huawei/ZTE case has added a FRAND layer to general patent injunction law for SEPs. In spite of this specific grid, SEP/FRAND injunction litigation remains rampant, courts are both granting and denying injunctions. The present contribution reviews recent case law from Germany and the UK, assesses its achievements and shortcomings, discusses the impact of the general patent law discourse on a more proportionally based, more flexible granting of injunctions, and suggests some ways forward.
{"title":"The future of FRAND injunction","authors":"Peter Georg Picht","doi":"10.5167/UZH-181234","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5167/UZH-181234","url":null,"abstract":"The CJEU's famous Huawei/ZTE case has added a FRAND layer to general patent injunction law for SEPs. In spite of this specific grid, SEP/FRAND injunction litigation remains rampant, courts are both granting and denying injunctions. The present contribution reviews recent case law from Germany and the UK, assesses its achievements and shortcomings, discusses the impact of the general patent law discourse on a more proportionally based, more flexible granting of injunctions, and suggests some ways forward.","PeriodicalId":237792,"journal":{"name":"Gewerblicher Rechtsschutz und Urheberrecht","volume":"1996 4","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"132281352","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 1900-01-01DOI: 10.15496/publikation-14898
N. P. Flechsig
{"title":"Entstehung und Abtretung gesetzlicher Vergütungsansprüche : zugleich ein Beitrag zur Frage einer Verlegerbeteiligung","authors":"N. P. Flechsig","doi":"10.15496/publikation-14898","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.15496/publikation-14898","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":237792,"journal":{"name":"Gewerblicher Rechtsschutz und Urheberrecht","volume":"4 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"114774490","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：