SpringerLink
Log in

FRAND Declarations and the ‘Third-Party Effect’: A Contract Law and Competition Law Perspective

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
A Critical Mind

Part of the book series: MPI Studies on Intellectual Property and Competition Law ((MSIP,volume 30))

Abstract

FRAND declarations, issued by patent holders in the context of a formal standardization process, are at the center of an ongoing academic debate which has been continuously fueled by relevant decisions of the German and English courts, in particular since the Huawei/ZTE judgment of the CJEU. Based on previous case law, the German debate still focuses mainly on competition law implications. By contrast, FRAND declarations have comparatively seldom been analyzed comprehensively from a contract law perspective in Germany. This may also be due to the necessary private international law determination of the applicable law in the context of contract law, that hinders a universal analysis of contractual legal effects in the FRAND context and requires a differentiated approach depending on the standardization organization involved.

Prof. Dr. jur. Matthias Leistner, LL.M. (Cambridge) is Chairholder of Civil Law and Intellectual Property Law with Information Law and IT Law (GRUR Chair) at the Ludwig Maximilian University (LMU), Munich.

Lukas Kleeberger is Legal Trainee (Rechtsreferendar) at the Higher Regional Court (OLG) Munich and Research Assistant at the Chair for Civil Law and Intellectual Property Law with Information Law and IT Law at the Ludwig Maximilian University (LMU), Munich.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
EUR 32.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or Ebook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 219.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 279.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Free ship** worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 279.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free ship** worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    The abbreviation is based on the wording of the declaration of commitment (‘fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory’), which is mainly used by European standardization organizations such as ETSI. Other—especially US-American and international—standardization organizations such as ISO/IEC/ITU do not specifically use the criterion ‘fair’, hence they sometimes refer to them as RAND declarations. Content-wise, this formal distinction is unanimously considered irrelevant since the requirement of ‘fair’ is part of the obligation to grant non-discriminatory and reasonable licenses, see Gunther Friedl and Christoph Ann, ‘Entgeltberechnung für FRAND-Lizenzen an standardessenziellen Patenten’ (2014) GRUR 948, 949; Tim W Dornis, ‘Standardessentielles Patent, FRAND-Bindung und Rechtsübergang’ (2020) GRUR 690, 692 n 34; ITU-T, Understanding Patents, Competition & Standardization in an Interconnected World (2014) 56 fn 76 <https://www.itu.int/en/ITU-T/Documents/Manual_Patents_Final_E.pdf> accessed 1 March 2022; Jorge L Contreras, ‘An Empirical Study of the Effects of Ex Ante Licensing Disclosure Policies on the Development of Voluntary Technical Standards’ (2011) National Institute of Standards and Technology, No GCR 11-934, 3 fn 9; therefore, following the German courts, the abbreviation ‘FRAND’ is used in the following (cf. footnote 6 below).

  2. 2.

    See already Mary-Rose McGuire, ‘Die FRAND-Erklärung’ (2018) GRUR 128, 129 ff.

  3. 3.

    See eg Joseph Straus, ‘Das Regime des European Telecommunications Standards Institute-ETSI’ (2011) GRUR Int 469; Philipp Eckel, ‘Anspruch auf Lizenzeinräumung aus FRAND-Erklärungen bei standardessentiellen Patenten - Teil 2’ (2017) NZKart 469; Mary-Rose McGuire (2018, supra n 2) 128.

  4. 4.

    See ISO, ‘ISO Standards and Patents’ <https://www.iso.org/iso-standards-and-patents.html> accessed 1 March 2022.

  5. 5.

    The primary author of this article has submitted legal opinions on the issues discussed here in court disputes concerning the ITU standard before the Düsseldorf Regional Court, the Mannheim Regional Court and the Munich Regional Court.

  6. 6.

    Cf e.g. Mannheim Regional Court, 02.05.2012, 2 O 376/11, BeckRS 2012, 11805; Düsseldorf Regional Court, 31.03.2016, 4 O 73/14, BeckRS 2016, 131580; Düsseldorf Regional Court, 09.11.2018, 4a O 17/17, BeckRS 2018, 35570; Düsseldorf Regional Court, 21.12.2018, 4c O 3/17, BeckRS 2018, 42127; Düsseldorf Regional Court, 09.11.2018, 4a O 63/17, BeckRS 2018, 38608; Düsseldorf Regional Court, 08.01.2019, 4c O 12/17, BeckRS 2019, 3125; Karlsruhe Higher Regional Court, 26.05.2010, 6 U 100/08, BeckRS 2010, 144515.

  7. 7.

    Hanns Ullrich, ‘Patente und technische Normen: Konflikt und Komplementarität in patent- und wettbewerbsrechtlicher Sicht’ in Matthias Leistner (ed), Europäische Perspektiven des Geistigen Eigentums (Mohr Siebeck 2010) 89 ff.

  8. 8.

    Düsseldorf Higher Regional Court, 22.03.2019, GRUR-RS 2019, 6087, para 118—Improving Handovers.

  9. 9.

    See Tim W Dornis (2020, supra n 1) 690, 692 ff; Lea Tochtermann, ‘Das Schicksal der ETSI FRAND-Erklärung bei Übertragung des SEP’ (2020) GRUR 905, 911 ff.

  10. 10.

    See CJEU, 16.07.2015, Case C-170/13 Huawei Technology Co Ltd v ZTE Corp [2015] ECLI:EU:C:2015:477, para 51; Düsseldorf Higher Regional Court, 22.03.2019, GRUR-RS 2019, 6087, para 118—Improving Handovers; cf. Unwired Planet International Ltd v Huawei Technologies Co Ltd & Anor [2017] EWHC 711 (Pat), para 121 f (specifically regarding the inclusion in the public ETSI database).

  11. 11.

    CJEU C-170/13 Huawei Technology Co Ltd v ZTE Corp [2015] (supra n 10) para 44.

  12. 12.

    According to the order for reference Düsseldorf Regional Court, 21.03.2013, 4b O 104/12, GRUR Int 2013, 547, market dominance was to be assumed.

  13. 13.

    Due to its lack of competence for a uniform interpretation, the CJEU naturally was unable to comment directly on this issue.

  14. 14.

    See the references in Matthias Leistner, ‘European Experiences: EU and Germany’ in Reto Hilty and Kung-Chung Liu (eds), SEPS, SSOS and FRAND (Routledge 2019) Chapter 15, 3.

  15. 15.

    Especially in legal literature, genuine patent law concepts have occasionally been used to justify the (desired) effect of the FRAND commitment against everyone. Thus, an application by analogy of Sec 15(3) German Patent Act [see Mary-Rose McGuire (2018, supra n 2) 128, 129, 134 with further references] or some sort of partial exhaustion [see Theo Bodewig, ‘Einige Überlegungen zur Erschöpfung bei Zwangslizenzen an standardessentiellen Patenten’ (2015) GRUR Int 626, 628 ff] have been considered. For a similar but more general approach, which argues for a normative third-party effect (‘Normungsrechtliche Drittwirkung’) of the FRAND declaration based on the function of the standardization and the effect of the declaration on the general public, see Anja Balitzki, Patente und technische Normen. Zugangsmöglichkeiten für Normnutzer (Tectum 2013) 296 ff.

  16. 16.

    See even more critical Mary-Rose McGuire (2018, supra n 2) 128, 129: ‘Overall solutions’ that ‘aim at the desired result’. Cf also on this case law of the German regional and higher regional courts, following Huawei/ZTE, which has oscillated between approaches of justification by contract law and competition law (and on the often not stringent assessment of the existence of a dominant position) Matthias Leistner (2019, supra n 14) Chapter 15, 4.1 with further references. See, however, (in accordance with earlier rulings by courts of instance and higher courts of instance) most recently with a clear distinction, e.g. Karlsruhe Higher Regional Court, 30.10.2019, 6 U 183/16, GRUR 2020, 166, para 84—Datenpaketverarbeitung (whereby the question of the contractual obligation remains undecided); see also Mannheim Regional Court, 27.02.2009, 7 O 94/08, NJOZ 2009, 1458, 1461 and also to some extent Düsseldorf Regional Court, 24.04.2012, 4b O 273/10, BeckRS 2012, 9682 IV; Düsseldorf Regional Court, 24.04.2012 2012, 4b O 274/10, BeckRS 20129376 IV. 1) a).

  17. 17.

    See Unwired Planet International Ltd v Huawei Technologies Co Ltd & Anor [2017] (supra n 10) paras 98 ff, 806; Unwired Planet International Ltd v Huawei Technologies Co Ltd & Anor [2018] EWCA Civ 2344, para 27.

  18. 18.

    This was not objected to by the parties in the appeal proceedings and was therefore not subject of the proceedings before the Court of Appeals, see Unwired Planet International Ltd v Huawei Technologies Co Ltd & Anor (2018, supra n 17) para 27.

  19. 19.

    Düsseldorf Higher Regional Court, 22.03.2019, 2 U 31/16, GRUR-RS 2019, 6087, paras 118 ff—Improving Handovers.

  20. 20.

    Mary-Rose McGuire (2018, supra n 2) 128, 131.

  21. 21.

    Ibid 128, 130 f.

  22. 22.

    For further details, see III.2.

  23. 23.

    By now general opinion, see Mary-Rose McGuire (2018, supra n 2) 128, 130 ff.

  24. 24.

    Cf eg Heinz-Peter Mansel, ‘Art 43 EGBGB’ in Heinz-Peter Mansel and Dieter Henrich (eds), Staudinger BGB Art. 43-46 EGBGB (Sellier/de Gruyter 2015) paras 783, 792; see also Matthias Augsburger, Der kartellrechtliche Zwangslizenzeinwand (Nomos 2017) 92 fn 224.

  25. 25.

    Mary-Rose McGuire (2018, supra n 2) 128, 131; Florian Brunner, ‘FRAND-Obliegenheiten bei standardessentiellen Patenten aus vertrags- und kartellrechtlicher Perspektive’ (2019) sic! 1, 4; the residence of the parties in dispute is only of subsidiary significance, cf generally Dieter Martiny, ‘Art 1 Rome I Regulation’ in Franz Jürgen Säcker, Roland Rixecker, Hartmut Oetker and Bettina Limperg (eds), Münchener Kommentar zum BGB (8th edn, Beck 2021) para 24.

  26. 26.

    Cf Jan von Hein, ‘IPR I Einleitung’ in Franz Jürgen Säcker, Roland Rixecker, Hartmut Oetker and Bettina Limperg, Münchener Kommentar zum BGB (8th edn, Beck 2020) paras 56, 109, 116.

  27. 27.

    CJEU, 28.07.2016, Case C-191/15 Consumer Information v Amazon EU Sàrl [2016] ECLI:EU:C:2016:612, para 36; Michael McParland, The Rome I Regulation on the Law Applicable to Contractual Obligations (OUP 2015) para 6.39; Dieter Martiny, Internationales Vertragsrecht (8th edn, Otto Schmidt Verlag 2015) para 1.68.

  28. 28.

    CJEU, 21.01.2016, Case C-359/14 ERGO Insurance v P&C Insurance and others [2016] ECLI:EU:C:2016:40 para 44; Dieter Martiny (2021, supra n 25) Art 1 Rome I Regulation, para 7 with further references.

  29. 29.

    Michael McParland (2015, supra n 27) para 6.45; Eva-Maria Kieninger, ‘Art 1 Rome I Regulation’ in Franco Ferrari, Eva-Maria Kieninger, Peter Mankowski, Karsten Otte, Ingo Saenger, Götz Joachim Schulze and Ansgar Staudinger, Internationales Vertragsrecht (3rd edn, Beck 2018) para 7; Dieter Martiny (2015, supra n 27) para 1.70; Dieter Martiny (2021, supra n 25) ‘Art 1 Rome I Regulation’ para 7; the CJEU has also qualified a unilateral offer without reciprocity as a contract within the meaning of Art 15(1)(c) Brussels I Regulation, see CJEU, 14.05.2009, Case C-180/06 Ilsinger v Dreschers [2009] ECLI:EU:C:2009:303, para 54.

  30. 30.

    Mario Giuliano and Paul Lagarde, Report on the Convention on the Law Applicable to Contractual Obligations [1980] OJ of 31.10.1980, C 282/1 at 10; Peter Stone, Stone on Private International Law in the European Union (4th edn, Edward Elgar 2018) para 14.11.

  31. 31.

    Patent Statement and Licensing Declaration for ITU-T or ITU-R Recommendation | ISO or IEC Deliverable, <https://isotc.iso.org/livelink/livelink/fetch/2000/2122/3770791/ITU_ISO_IEC_Patent_Statement_and_Licensing_Declaration_Form.pdf?nodeid=6297442&vernum=-2> accessed 1 March 2022.

  32. 32.

    Mary-Rose McGuire (2018, supra n 2) 128, 131; Florian Brunner (2019, supra n 25) 1, 5. In particular, in cases in which the very formation and validity of the intended contractual obligation is in dispute, the contract statute must be the determining factor, see Art 10(1) Rome I Regulation.

  33. 33.

    See also below Sect. 3.4.

  34. 34.

    Irrelevant is the point in time the claim arises, see CJEU, 18.10.2016, Case C-135/15 Greece v Nikiforidis [2016] ECLI:EU:C:2016:774, para 34: The potential argument of a company seeking a license that its claim to license negotiations on FRAND terms on the basis of a contract in favor of third parties only arises with its request is therefore irrelevant for the applicability of the Rome I Regulation.

  35. 35.

    David Paulus, ‘Art. 28 Rome I Regulation’ in Beate Gsell, Wolfgang Krüger, Stephan Lorenz and Christoph Reymann Beck´scher Online-Großkommentar (Beck, Status: 1 June 2021) para 12; Dieter Martiny (2021, supra n 25) Art 28 Rome I Regulation, para 5; Götz Schulze, ‘Art 28 Rome I Regulation’ in Franco Ferrari, Eva-Maria Kieninger, Peter Mankowski, Karsten Otte, Ingo Saenger, Götz Joachim Schulze and Ansgar Staudinger Internationales Vertragsrecht (3rd edn, Beck 2018) para 1.

  36. 36.

    Cf Ulrich Magnus, ‘Art 4 Rome I Regulation’ in Ulrich Magnus (ed), Staudinger BGB Einleitung zu Rom I-VO, Art 1-10 Rom I-VO, Internationales Vertragsrecht 1 (Sellier/de Gruyter 2016) paras 15, 110; more cautious Mary-Rose McGuire and Lea Tochtermann, ‘Lizenzverträge im IZVR und IPR’ (2016) GRUR-Prax 427, 428.

  37. 37.

    Cf fundamentally on copyright law German Federal Court of Justice, 02.10.1997, I ZR 88/95, GRUR 1999, 152—Spielbankaffaire, and previously German Federal Court of Justice, 16.06.1994, I ZR 24/92, GRUR 1994, 798—Folgerecht bei Auslandsbezug; on patent law e.g. Karlsruhe Higher Regional Court, 25.02.1987, 6 U 32/86, GRUR Int 1987, 788. With an accurate approach in the context of FRAND declarations, but subsequently (even previous to the development of the code of conduct in the CJEU Huawei/ZTE judgment and hence likely to fall short) focusing solely on effects in rem of the rights conferred by the patent; similarly also Mannheim Regional Court, 18.02.2011, 7 O 100/10, BeckRS 2011, 4156, C II 1 c) aa) with further references.

  38. 38.

    See CJEU, 09.06.1994, Case C-292/93 Lieber v Göbel [1994] ECLI:EU:C:1994:241 para 14; Ulrich Magnus (2016, supra n 36) Art 1 Rome I Regulation, para 28.

  39. 39.

    See Mary-Rose McGuire (2018, supra n 2) 128, 132; Florian Brunner (2019, supra n 25) 1, 5.

  40. 40.

    See ETSI Intellectual Property Rights Policy, 6.1bis.

  41. 41.

    See Patent Statement and Licensing Declaration for ITU-T or ITU-R Recommendation | ISO or IEC Deliverable (supra n 31) 2; this wording is not (yet) used in earlier forms, although the parties might of course have had a similar intention in accordance with the predominant reasonable expectations on this matter.

  42. 42.

    In the authors’ opinion, this is not taken into account clearly and precisely enough in Mannheim Regional Court, 18.02.2011, 7 O 100/10, BeckRS 2011, 4156, C II 1 c) aa) and Thomas Kühnen, Handbuch der Patentverletzung (13th edn, Wolters Kluwer 2020) 678.

  43. 43.

    Cf also in this respect (at least to some extent) correctly taken into account in Düsseldorf Regional Court, 24.04.2012, 4b O 273/10, BeckRS 2012, 9682, IV. 1) a) bb).

  44. 44.

    Whether such a ‘free’ disposal of the scope of the exclusive rights flowing from the patent with legal effects in rem beyond the numerus clausus of possible legal transactions in rem is possible, however, is controversial for German law as lex loci protectionis: Dismissive, Mannheim Regional Court, 27.02.2009, 7 O 94/08, NJOZ 2009, 1458, 1461 ff (no disposal in rem beyond the numerus clausus determined by patent law); similar in its conclusion Mannheim Regional Court, 18.02.2011, 7 O 100/1, BeckRS 2011, 4156, C II 1 c aa) (4); similarly Sven Vetter, ‘Übergang der FRAND-Verpflichtung mit dem Patenterwerb’ (2019) GRUR 704, 706; likewise dismissive Ingo Rinken, ‘§ 24 PatG’ in Rainer Schulte, Patentgesetz mit EPÜ (10th edn, Carl Heymanns 2017) para 92; Düsseldorf Higher Regional Court, 22.03.2019, 2 U 31/16, GRUR-RS 2019, 6087 para 119—Improving Handovers, however, does not adopt these concerns since in any case a legal power to refrain from the exercise of its exclusive rights remains unaffected by this. If this is meant as a pactum de non petendo under the law of obligations—which would then have to be assessed under the contract statute—this can be convincing. Yet, another approach would be the ‘transfer’ of these obligations under the law of obligations within the framework of all patent transfer agreements (see below Sect. 6), whereby a ‘quasi “in rem”’ effect would indeed exist. If, on the other hand, the Higher Regional Court of Düsseldorf were to envisage a partial waiver in the narrower sense with effect in rem, this would—if possible—have to be assessed separately from the obligations under the law of obligations arising from the FRAND declaration, which exist irrespective of this.

  45. 45.

    Hence, even in the case of a unitary agreement under intellectual property law, in terms of the conflict-of-laws rules, the act within the law of obligations is to be distinguished from the disposition in rem. This is achieved by theoretically splitting the transaction and assessing it separately (Spaltungstheorie). The transaction under the law of obligations is to be assessed according to the contractual statute, the disposition in rem according to the protection country principle. Cf German Federal Court of Justice, 21.10.1964, Ib ZR 22/63, Ausl 1965, 504, 506 ̶ Carla; Gerhard Kegel, ‘Art 12 EGBGB Annex’ in Gerhard Kegel (ed), Soergel BGB Band 10 (12th edn, Kohlhammer 1996) paras 33 ff; Karl-Heinz Fezer and Stefan Koos, ‘Internationales Wirtschaftsrecht’ in Karl-Heinz Fezer, Stefan Koos and Ulrich Magnus (eds), Staudinger BGB Internationales Wirtschaftsrecht (Sellier/de Gruyter 2019) para 968; Dieter Martiny (2021, supra n 25) Art 4 Rome I Regulation, para 250; Andreas Köhler, ‘Art 4 Rome I Regulation’ in Beate Gsell, Wolfgang Krüger, Stephan Lorenz and Christoph Reymann, Beck´scher Online-Großkommentar (Beck, Status: 1 February 2021) paras 338, 348; Karl Kreuzer, ‘Art 38 EGBGB Annex II’ in Kurt Rebmann, Franz Jürgen Säcker und Roland Rixecker, Münchener Kommentar zum BGB (3rd edn, Beck 1998) paras 22 ff. This theoretical distinction regarding the legal transaction has its origin in the indispensability of the protection country principle for intellectual property (see Karl Kreuzer above). The law of the protection country applies compulsorily to legal issues which concern the protective effect of the intellectual property which is why the application of the principle of separation according to the lex loci protectionis must also be observed in the conflict-of-laws context (see Karl Kreuzer above para 15; Dieter Martiny (2021, supra n 25), Art 4 Rome I Regulation, para 250). However, this only means that the lex loci protectionis determines, whether a disposition in rem has to be assessed under conflict-of-laws rules in addition to the transaction under the law of obligations. It is of no significance for the (fundamental) applicability of the contract statute regarding any aspects of the law of obligations. This latter depends solely on the characterization of the legal institution under conflict-of-laws rules and the applicability of the contract statute, in the present case Art 3 Rome I Regulation [see Ulrich Magnus (2016, supra n 36) Art 28 EGBGB, para 600; Gerhard Kegel, ‘Art 12 EGBGB Annex’ in Gerhard Kegel (ed), Soergel BGB Band 10 (12th edn, Kohlhammer 1996) paras 34].

  46. 46.

    Cf only in this respect Mannheim Regional Court, 27.02.2009, 7 O 94/08, NJOZ 2009, 1458, 1461 ff; Düsseldorf Regional Court, 24.04.2012, 4b O 273/10, BeckRS 2012, 9682 IV. 1) a) aa); Düsseldorf Regional Court, 24.04.2012, 4b O 274/10, BeckRS 2012, 9376 IV. 1) a) aa).

  47. 47.

    Cf for such an approach Düsseldorf Regional Court, 24.04.2012, 4b O 273/10, BeckRS 2012, 9682 IV. 1) a) bb); Düsseldorf Regional Court, 24.042012, 4b O 274/10, BeckRS 2012, 9376 IV. 1) a) bb); Mannheim Regional Court, 18.02.2011, 7 O 100/10, BeckRS 2011, 4156, C II 1 c) aa) with further references (although deriving a different conclusion than this paper).

  48. 48.

    Cf Josef Drexl, ‘Internationales Immaterialgüterrecht’ in Franz Jürgen Säcker, Roland Rixecker, Hartmut Oetker and Bettina Limperg, Münchener Kommentar zum BGB (7th edn, Beck 2018) paras 224, 270.

  49. 49.

    In this respect, a distinction must also be made between a waiver of the right to bring an action, which may have effect in rem for the patent proprietor, such as the loss of his right to bring an action, and a waiver of action which is only agreed upon under the law of obligations and hence only binds inter partes, see Mannheim Regional Court, 27.02.2009, 7 O 94/08, NJOZ 2009, 1458, III, 3.

  50. 50.

    Which seems to be assumed by the Düsseldorf Higher Regional Court, 22.03.2019, 2 U 31/16, GRUR-RS 2019, 6087, para 118—Improving Handovers, but which is criticized in German literature, see Tim W Dornis (2020, supra n 1) 692 ff; Lea Tochtermann (2020, supra n 9) 905, 911 ff.

  51. 51.

    Dieter Martiny (2021, supra n 25) Art 3 Rome I Regulation, para 8.

  52. 52.

    On the legal assessment of the choice of law clause in the IPR Licensing Declaration (FRAND declaration) vis-à-vis ETSI, see Mary-Rose McGuire (2018, supra n 2) 128, 131; Joseph Straus (2011, supra n 3) 469, 475 ff.

  53. 53.

    Deviating from this Mary-Rose McGuire (2018, supra n 2) 131 n 41, who, with reference to Microsoft v Motorola [2012] 9th Cir GRUR Int 1149, assumes a choice of law in favor of US law for ITU. However, the cited decision does not contain any statement as to the existence of a choice of law clause between the patentee and ITU, nor under which law the FRAND declaration is to be assessed.

  54. 54.

    In particular, Articles 5 to 8 Rome I Regulation, which in principle have priority, are not relevant, cf. on the general scope of application Ulrich Magnus (2016, supra n 36) Art 4 Rome I Regulation, para 16.

  55. 55.

    Franco Ferrari, ‘Art 4 Rome I Regulation’ in Franco Ferrari, Eva-Maria Kieninger, Peter Mankowski, Karsten Otte, Ingo Saenger, Götz Joachim Schulze and Ansgar Staudinger, Internationales Vertragsrecht (3rd edn, Beck 2018) para 61.

  56. 56.

    See Dieter Martiny (2021, supra n 25) Before Art 1 Rome I Regulation, paras 24 ff.

  57. 57.

    Mario Giuliano and Paul Lagarde (1980, supra n 30).

  58. 58.

    Dieter Martiny (2015, supra n 27) para 1.59.

  59. 59.

    Art 4(2) Rome I Regulation is therefore a codification of the former Swiss doctrine developed by Schnitzer (see Adolf Schnitzer ‘Die funktionelle Anknüpfung im internationalen Vertragsrecht’ in Wilhelm Schönenberger (ed), Festgabe für Wilhelm Schönenberger zum 70. Geburtstag (Universitätsverlag 1968) 387, 396 ff; Adolf Schnitzer, ‘Betrachtungen zur Gegenwart und Zukunft des Internationalen Privatrechts’ (1974) RabelsZ 317, 326 ff) further refined by Vischer, see Michael McParland (2015, supra n 27) para 10.33; Andreas Köhler (1 February 2021, supra n 45) Art 4 Rome I Regulation, para 150; Dieter Martiny (2021, supra n 25) Art 4 Rome I Regulation, para 176.

  60. 60.

    Adolf Schnitzer (1968, supra n 59) 396 ff (emphasis by the author); Franco Ferrari (2018, supra n 55) Art 4 Rome I Regulation, para 61.

  61. 61.

    Unwired Planet International Ltd v Huawei Technologies Co Ltd & Anor [2017] (supra n 10) para 121; Unwired Planet International Ltd v Huawei Technologies Co Ltd & Anor [2018] (supra n 17) para 27.

  62. 62.

    CJEU C-170/13 Huawei Technology Co Ltd v ZTE Corp [2015] (supra n 10) para 51 (emphasis added). Admittedly, in this—in itself somewhat ambiguous—wording the CJEU apparently misses the fact that the inclusion in the ETSI IPR database does not in itself contain any binding statement regarding the existence and essentiality of the patent for the standard.

  63. 63.

    See <https://www.itu.int/en/ITU-T/ipr/Pages/default.aspx> <https://www.iso.org/iso-standards-and-patents.html> and <https://patents.iec.ch/iec/pa.nsf/pa_h.xsp?v=0> accessed 1 March 2022.

  64. 64.

    Guidelines for Implementation of the Common Patent Policy for ITU-T/ITU-R/ISO/IEC [2018] 4, 6, <https://www.itu.int/dms_pub/itu-t/oth/04/04/T04040000010005PDFE.pdf> accessed 1 March 2022.

  65. 65.

    Ibid.

  66. 66.

    Mario Giuliano and Paul Lagarde (1980, supra n 30) 20 ff; Franco Ferrari (2018, supra n 55) Art 4 Rome I Regulation, para 63; Adolf Schnitzer (1968, supra n 59) 396 ff; cf. also the former Section 37 Austrian IPRG.

  67. 67.

    See with this conclusion regarding Art 28 EGBGB (old version) Düsseldorf Regional Court, 24.04.2012, 4b O 273/10, BeckRS 2012, 9682 IV. 1) a) bb), whereby this older judgment, according to the view held here, does not sufficiently take into account the necessary teleological focus on the socio-economic function of the contractual relationship.

  68. 68.

    Cf Stefan Maaßen, Normung, Standardisierung und Immaterialgüterrechte (Carl Heymanns Verlag 2006) 269; Joseph Straus (2011, supra n 3) 469, 476; Florian Brunner (2019, supra n 25) 1, 5 (on Art 117 Swiss IPRG).

  69. 69.

    Cf European Commission, Guidelines on the Applicability of Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union to Horizontal Cooperation Agreements [2011] OJ of 14.01.2011, C11/1 paras 263 ff, 280 ff, 287 ff; Stephan Barthelmeß and Nicolas Gauss, ‘Die Lizensierung standardessentieller Patente im Kontext branchenweit vereinbarter Standards unter dem Aspekt des Art. 101 AEUV’ (2012) WuW 626, 627 ff; Christian Koenig and Andreas Neumann, ‘Standardisierung - ein Tatbestand des Kartellrechts?’ (2009) WuW 382, 385 ff.

  70. 70.

    Cf the citations in n 37 and n 46 above.

  71. 71.

    The Düsseldorf Regional Court, 24.04.2012, 4b O 273/10, BeckRS 2012, 9682 IV. 1) a) bb) could escape such an inappropriate result only ‘by chance’ since the plaintiff in the proceedings had its seat in Germany, hence the principle of characteristic performance led to the same applicable law as the protection country principle. If, on the other hand, the plaintiff had been domiciled in any third country, it would have been perfectly clear that applying the characteristic performance in such cases leads to legal fragmentation and considerable practical difficulties in application.

  72. 72.

    Cf in general Erik Jayme, ‘Wilhelm Wengler als Internationalprivatrechtler - eine persönliche Erinnerung und Würdigung’ (2016) ZaöRV 579, 592 on the principle of so-called material harmony in the case of contracts which are connected in terms of content and thus form a larger unit, for which there is a regulatory interest in the similar treatment of the contracts, which is why a uniform connection can then be chosen in the case of several contracts, Andreas Köhler (1 February 2021, supra n 45) Art 4 Rome I Regulation, para 182; Karsten Thorn, ‘Art 4 Rome I Regulation’ in Thomas Rauscher, EuZPR/EuIPR (4th edn, Otto Schmidt Verlag 2016) para 148, 151; Bernd von Hoffmann, ‘Art 28 EGBGB’ in Gerhard Kegel (ed), Soergel BGB Band 10 (12th edn, Kohlhammer 1996) para 117.

  73. 73.

    Cf Florian Brunner (2019, supra n 25) 1, 5 (on Swiss Private International Law).

  74. 74.

    On the admissibility under German law of a contract in favor of a third party in which the right of the beneficiary is established subject to a condition, see German Federal Court of Justice, 20.06.1986, V ZR 162/85, NJW-RR 1987, 114.

  75. 75.

    Cf Dieter Martiny (2021, supra n 25) Art 4 Rome I Regulation, para 271; Ulrich Magnus (2016, supra n 36) Art 4 Rome I Regulation, paras 144, 555; Ulrike Stimmel, ‘Die Beurteilung von Lizenzverträgen unter der Rom I-Verordnung’ (2010) GRUR Int 783, 787; Sebastian Wündisch and Stephan Bauer, ‘Patent-Cross-Lizenzverträge - Terra incognita?’ (2010) GRUR Int 641, 644 ff; Mary-Rose McGuire and Lea Tochtermann (2016, supra n 36) 427, 428 ff.

  76. 76.

    Bernd von Hoffmann (1996, supra n 72) Art 28 EGBGB, para 283.

  77. 77.

    Roland Schwarze, ‘Before § 320 BGB’ in Manfred Löwisch, Volker Rieble, Hansjörg Otto and Roland Schwarze (eds), Staudinger BGB §§315-326 BGB (Sellier/de Gruyter 2020) para 6.

  78. 78.

    Ole Lando, ‘The EEC Convention on the Law Applicable to Contractual Obligations’ (1987) CMLRev 159, 204; Bernd von Hoffmann (1996, supra n 72) Art 28 EGBGB para 283; Stephan Göthel in Franco Ferrari, Eva-Maria Kieninger, Peter Mankowski, Karsten Otte, Ingo Saenger, Götz Joachim Schulze and Ansgar Staudinger, Internationales Vertragsrecht (3rd edn, Beck 2018) paras 6.2614, 6.2625 ff; Ulrich Magnus (2016, supra n 36) Art 4 Rome I Regulation, paras 144, 576.

  79. 79.

    Ulrich Magnus (2016, supra n 36) Art 4 Rome I Regulation, para 144.

  80. 80.

    Cf Bernd von Hoffmann (1996, supra n 72) Art 28 EGBGB, para 283; Stephan Göthel (2018, supra n 78) para 6.2627.

  81. 81.

    Ulrich Magnus (2016, supra n 36) Art 4 Rome I Regulation, para 21; Mario Giuliano and Paul Lagarde (1980, supra n 30) 22.

  82. 82.

    Ibid.

  83. 83.

    See on the ETSI FRAND declaration Joseph Strauß, ‘Das Regime des European Telecommunications Standards Institute - ETSI’ (2011) GRUR Int 469, 476; already on Art 28(1) EGBGB (old version) Stefan Maaßen (2006, supra n 68) 269.

  84. 84.

    Cf also Florian Brunner (2019, supra n 25) 1, 5.

  85. 85.

    <https://www.itu.int/en/about/Pages/contact.aspx> accessed 1 March 2022.

  86. 86.

    <https://www.iso.org/about-us.html> accessed 1 March 2022.

  87. 87.

    <https://www.iec.ch/about/locations/?ref=menu> accessed 1 March 2022.

  88. 88.

    Also Florian Brunner (2019, supra n 25) 1, 5.

  89. 89.

    Ibid 1, 6 with further references; see also Jacques de Werra, ‘Patents and Trade Secrets in the Internet Age’ (2015) ZSR 123, 149 ff, 152.

  90. 90.

    See Guidelines for Implementation of the Common Patent Policy for ITU-T/ITU-R/ISO/IEC (2018, supra n 64) 3, 9; ITU-T (2014, supra n 1) 90; Peter Picht, Strategisches Verhalten bei der Nutzung von Patenten in Standardisierungsverfahren aus der Sicht des europäischen Kartellrechts (Stämpfli 2013) 212.

  91. 91.

    Florian Brunner (2019, supra n 25) 1, 6; on the corresponding interest of patent owners, see also Hanns Ullrich (2010, supra n 7) 89 ff; see also Rolf Weber and Salim Rizvi, ‘FRAND - Versuch einer Strukturierung’ (2011) ZBJV 433, 436 ff; on German law similarly Philipp Eckel (2017, supra n 3) 469, 472.

  92. 92.

    Florian Brunner (2019, supra n 25) 1, 7; see also Jacques de Werra (2015, supra n 89) 123, 149 ff, 152.

  93. 93.

    Florian Brunner (2019, supra n 25) 1, 14 ff; similar under German law Philipp Eckel (2017, supra n 3) 469; it is questionable to what extent such a transfer of the program of obligations under competition law would be opposed by the fact that the CJEU developed it in a situation in which market dominance of the patent holder concerned could be assumed. In the meantime, depending on the flexibility of the interpretation of the Huawei/ZTE regime (rigidly consecutive or flexibly comprehensive), weaknesses and imponderables of the systematic FRAND regime according to Huawei/ZTE are also discernible. In this context, a contract law FRAND objection in the context of the principle of good faith, which is comparatively still largely contourless, could also represent an opportunity to draft an independent and flexible contract law obligations regime. The central element of such a free-hand development in good faith would in any case remain the condition that no legal action, such as an injunction, can be taken against implementers willing to negotiate as long as the SEP holder has not made a FRAND offer.

  94. 94.

    Florian Brunner (2019, supra n 25) 1, 9, 13.

  95. 95.

    Ibid 1, 9 with further references and details; with a different view (‘could be considered as’) Jacques de Werra (2015, supra n 89) 123, 152: Licensing obligation from preliminary contract in favor of third parties.

  96. 96.

    Florian Brunner (2019, supra n 25) 1, 9 with further references and details.

  97. 97.

    Cf Thomas Kühnen (2020, supra n 42) 675.

  98. 98.

    Karlsruhe Higher Regional Court, 30.10.2019, 6 U 183/16, GRUR 2020, 166 para 85 ff -Datenpaketverarbeitung; CJEU C-170/13 Huawei Technology Co Ltd v ZTE Corp [2015] (supra n 10) paras 55, 60.

  99. 99.

    Josef Drexl, ‘Internationales Immaterialgüterrecht’ (2018, supra n 48) para 199.

  100. 100.

    Cf Wolfgang Wurmnest, ‘IntWettbR / IntKartellR’ in Franz Jürgen Säcker, Roland Rixecker, Hartmut Oetker and Bettina Limperg, Münchener Kommentar zum BGB (7th edn, Beck 2018) para 120.

  101. 101.

    Cf Düsseldorf Higher Regional Court, 30.03.2017, I-15 U 66/15, GRUR 2017, 1219 para 129; approvingly Matthias Leistner (2019, supra n 14) Chapter 15, 3.2.1.

  102. 102.

    Cf Düsseldorf Higher Regional Court, 30.03.2017, I-15 U 66/15, GRUR 2017, 1219 para 128—Mobiles Kommunikationssystem; Karlsruhe Higher Regional Court, 30.10.2019, 6 U 183/16, GRUR 2020, 166 para 83; approvingly Matthias Leistner (2019, supra n 14) Chapter 15, 3.2.1.

  103. 103.

    Cf Düsseldorf Higher Regional Court, 30.03.2017, I-15 U 66/15, GRUR 2017, 1219 para 130; approvingly Matthias Leistner (2019, supra n 14) Chapter 15, 3.2.1.

  104. 104.

    Cf Düsseldorf Higher Regional Court, 30.03.2017, I-15 U 66/15, GRUR 2017, 1219 para 136; CJEU C-170/13 Huawei Technology Co Ltd v ZTE Corp [2015] (supra n 10) paras 55, 60.

  105. 105.

    Karlsruhe Higher Regional Court, 30.10.2019, 6 U 183/16, GRUR 2020, 166 para 87—Datenpaketverarbeitung.

  106. 106.

    Most recently Tim W Dornis (2020, supra n 1) 692 f; Lea Tochtermann (2020, supra n 9) 905, 911 ff; already critical of an in rem effect of the FRAND declaration Thomas Nägele and Sven Jacobs, ‘Zwangslizenzen im Patentrecht ̶ unter besonderer Berücksichtigung des kartellrechtlichen Zwangslizenzeinwands im Patentverletzungsprozess’ (2009) WRP 1062, 1074 f; Ronny Hauck, ‘Das Phänomen “Patent Privateering”’ (2014) WRP 1446, 1449.

  107. 107.

    Regarding this objective approach, cf. ECJ, 13.02.1979, Case 85/76 Hoffmann-La Roche & Co AG v Commission of the European Communities [1979] ECR 1979 -00461ECLI:EU:C:1979:36 para 91.

  108. 108.

    CJEU C-170/13 Huawei Technology Co Ltd v ZTE Corp [2015] (supra n 10) paras 44 ff, in particular 51 (outlined by the author).

  109. 109.

    This innovative idea and especially its textual anchoring in the Huawei/ZTE judgment originate from a seminar paper written in the winter semester 2019/20 on the Improving Handovers judgment by Mark Hillenbrand, student assistant at the Chair of Civil Law and Intellectual Property Law with Information Law and IT Law (GRUR Chair), Ludwig Maximilian University, Munich.

  110. 110.

    This is also expressly referred to in CJEU C-170/13 Huawei Technology Co Ltd v ZTE Corp [2015] (supra n 10) para. 53.

  111. 111.

    Similarly Tim W Dornis (2020, supra n 1) 695 ff.

  112. 112.

    The question of a limited third-party effect of certain contractual obligations is also becoming increasingly urgent in the context of discussions on the future regulation of the data economy to the extent that the use of immaterial goods—which are often and rightly not independently protected in this context—on the basis of contract networks is increasingly becoming the focus of practice. Cf in this context, for example, the Data Ethics Commission’s proposal for a limited third-party effect of contractual obligations regarding a certain handling of data on the model of trade secret protection, see Data Ethics Commission, Opinion of the Data Ethics Commission (2019) 144.

  113. 113.

    Cf inter alia Gunther Teubner, Netzwerk als Vertragsverbund (Nomos 2004); Matthias Malzer, Vertragsverbünde und Vertragssysteme (Nomos 2013) 197 ff, 340 ff with further references; Michael Grünberger, ‘Verträge über digitale Güter’ (2018) AcP 213, 280 ff.

  114. 114.

    European Commission, Setting out the EU Approach to Standard Essential Patents COM(2017) 712 final (29.11.2017) 5 ff.

  115. 115.

    CJEU C-170/13 Huawei Technology Co Ltd v ZTE Corp [2015] (supra n 10) para 53.

  116. 116.

    Cf from a fundamental methodological point of view on the case law of the CJEU (in the context of copyright law) Matthias Leistner and Verena Roder, ‘Die Rechtsprechung des EuGH zum Unionsurheberrecht aus methodischer Sicht - zugleich ein Beitrag zur Fortentwicklung des europäischen Privatrechts im Mehrebenensystem’ (2016) ZfPW 129, 168 ff.

  117. 117.

    See already Matthias Leistner (2019, supra n 14) Chapter 15, 4.1 with further references.

  118. 118.

    See also European Commission (2011, supra n 69) para 285.

  119. 119.

    A doctrinal starting point here is the recognized case group of ‘ongoing duties to protect’ or ‘ongoing duties of loyalty’. Even after the execution of a contract, the parties may be obliged to protect each other from damage, see Gregor Bachmann ‘§ 241 BGB’ in Franz Jürgen Säcker, Roland Rixecker, Hartmut Oetker and Bettina Limperg, Münchener Kommentar zum BGB (8th edn, Beck 2019) para 118; Wolfgang Ernst, ‘§ 280 BGB’ in Franz Jürgen Säcker, Roland Rixecker, Hartmut Oetker and Bettina Limperg, Münchener Kommentar zum BGB (8th edn, Beck 2019) para 115 ff; in detail it is still debated whether such secondary obligations are to be derived from Sec 241(2) German Civil Code or Sec 242, 241(1) German Civil Code; the differentiation, however, has little practical relevance, see Jens-Hinrich Binder, ‘Nachsorgende Vertragspflichten? Begründung und Reichweite fortdauernder Schutzpflichten nach Leistungsaustausch in Schuldverhältnissen’ (2011) AcP 587, 607.

  120. 120.

    An accessory obligation can also arise from the content of the contract without an express agreement in accordance with Sec 241(2) German Civil Code. The content of the accessory obligations shall also be based on the principle of good faith, cf. Holger Sutschet in Wolfgang Hau and Roman Poseck, Beck’scher Online Kommentar (Beck, Status: 1 August 2021) § 241 BGB para 42 and § 242, para 31.

  121. 121.

    Cf Torsten Körber, Standardessentielle Patente, FRAND-Verpflichtungen und Kartellrecht (Nomos 2013) 57 ff; Stephan Barthelmeß and Nicolas Gauß (2010, supra n 69) 626, 635 f; Düsseldorf Higher Regional Court, 22.03.2019, 2 U 31/16, GRUR-RS 2019, 6087 para 121—Improving Handovers; Mannheim Regional Court, 27.02.2009, 7 O 94/08, NJOZ 2009, 1458, III. 5.

  122. 122.

    Cf Jens-Hinrich Binder (2011, supra n 119) 587, 614 ff.

  123. 123.

    Ibid 587, 619 f, 625.

  124. 124.

    Cf Gerald Mäsch, ‘§ 328 BGB’ in Beate Gsell, Wolfgang Krüger, Stephan Lorenz and Christoph Reymann Beck´scher Online-Großkommentar (Beck, Status: 1 July 2021) para 172.

  125. 125.

    The decisive factor is the proximity to the obligation (Einwirkungsnähe), see Claus-Wilhelm Canaris, ‘Bankgeheimnis und Schutzwirkungen für Dritte im Konzern’ (2004) ZIP 1781, 1787; Gerald Mäsch, Beck´scher Online-Großkommentar (2021, supra n 124) § 328 BGB para 170.1; Steffen Klumpp, ‘§ 328 BGB’ in Steffen Klumpp, Volker Rieble, Manfred Löwisch (eds), Staudinger BGB §§328-345 BGB (Sellier/de Gruyter 2020) para 113.

  126. 126.

    Cf German Federal Court of Justice, 13.10.2011, IX ZR 193/10, NZG 2011, 1384 paras 17, 18.

  127. 127.

    Cf Mathias Malzer (2013, supra n 113) 376, 379.

  128. 128.

    Cf in general Steffen Klumpp (2020, supra n 125) §328 BGB para 113.

  129. 129.

    The allegation of abuse of rights is then based on the attempt to foil the legal FRAND obligations through the transfer, cf. Claudia Schubert, ‘§ 242 BGB’ in Franz Jürgen Säcker, Roland Rixecker, Hartmut Oetker and Bettina Limperg, Münchener Kommentar zum BGB (8th edn, Beck 2019) paras 253, 311 f.

  130. 130.

    Mary-Rose McGuire (2018, supra n 2) 128.

  131. 131.

    Cf Düsseldorf Higher Regional Court, 22.03.2019, 2 U 31/16, GRUR-RS 2019, 6087 para 118 ff—Improving Handovers; see also Hanns Ullrich (2010, supra n 7) 88 ff.

References

  • Matthias Augsburger (2017) Der kartellrechtliche Zwangslizenzeinwand, Nomos: Baden-Baden.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Anja Balitzki (2013) Patente und technische Normen. Zugangsmöglichkeiten für Normnutzer, Tectum: Baden-Baden.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stephan Barthelmeß and Nicolas Gauss (2012) ‘Die Lizensierung standardessentieller Patente im Kontext branchenweit vereinbarter Standards unter dem Aspekt des Art. 101 AEUV’ Wirtschaft und Wettbewerb 626.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jens-Hinrich Binder (2011) ‘Nachsorgende Vertragspflichten? Begründung und Reichweite fortdauernder Schutzpflichten nach Leistungsaustausch in Schuldverhältnissen’ (2011) Archiv für die civilistische Praxis 587.

    Google Scholar 

  • Theo Bodewig (2015) ‘Einige Überlegungen zur Erschöpfung bei Zwangslizenzen an standardessentiellen Patenten’ Gewerblicher Rechtsschutz und Urheberrecht International 626.

    Google Scholar 

  • Florian Brunner (2019) ‘FRAND-Obliegenheiten bei standardessentiellen Patenten aus vertrags- und kartellrechtlicher Perspektive’ Zeitschrift für Immaterialgüter-, Informations- und Wettbewerbsrecht 1.

    Google Scholar 

  • Claus-Wilhelm Canaris (2004) ‘Bankgeheimnis und Schutzwirkungen für Dritte im Konzern’ Zeitschrift für Wirtschaftsrecht 1781.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jorge L Contreras (2011) ‘An Empirical Study of the Effects of Ex Ante Licensing Disclosure Policies on the Development of Voluntary Technical Standards’ National Institute of Standards and Technology, No GCR 11-934.

    Google Scholar 

  • Data Ethics Commission (2019) Opinion of the Data Ethics Commission <https://www.bmjv.de/SharedDocs/Downloads/DE/Themen/Fokusthemen/Gutachten_DEK_EN_lang.pdf?__blob=publicationFile&v=3> accessed 1 March 2022.

  • Jacques de Werra (2015) ‘Patents and Trade Secrets in the Internet Age’ (2015) Zeitschrift für Schweizerisches Recht 123.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tim W Dornis (2020) ‘Standardessentielles Patent, FRAND-Bindung und Rechtsübergang’ Gewerblicher Rechtsschutz und Urheberrecht 690.

    Google Scholar 

  • Philipp Eckel (2017) ‘Anspruch auf Lizenzeinräumung aus FRAND-Erklärungen bei standardessentiellen Patenten - Teil 2’ Neue Zeitschrift für Kartellrecht 469.

    Google Scholar 

  • Franco Ferrari, Eva-Maria Kieninger, Peter Mankowski, Karsten Otte, Ingo Saenger, Götz Joachim Schulze and Ansgar Staudinger (2018) (eds) Internationales Vertragsrecht, 3rd edn, Beck: Munich.

    Google Scholar 

  • Karl-Heinz Fezer, Stefan Koos and Ulrich Magnus (2019) (eds) Staudinger BGB Internationales Wirtschaftsrecht, Sellier/de Gruyter: Berlin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gunther Friedl and Christoph Ann (2014) ‘Entgeltberechnung für FRAND-Lizenzen an standardessenziellen Patenten’ Gewerblicher Rechtsschutz und Urheberrecht 948.

    Google Scholar 

  • Michael Grünberger (2018) ‘Verträge über digitale Güter’ Archiv für die civilistische Praxis 213.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beate Gsell, Wolfgang Krüger, Stephan Lorenz and Christoph Reymann (2021) (eds) Beck´scher Online-Großkommentar, editing status 01 August 2021, Beck: Munich.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wolfgang Hau and Roman Poseck (2021) (eds) Beck´scher Online Kommentar, editing status 01 August 2021, Beck: Munich.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ronny Hauck (2014) ‘Das Phänomen “Patent Privateering”’ Wettbewerb in Recht und Praxis 1446.

    Google Scholar 

  • ITU-T (2014) ‘Understanding Patents, Competition & Standardization in an Interconnected World’ <https://www.itu.int/en/ITU-T/Documents/Manual_Patents_Final_E.pdf> accessed 1 March 2022.

  • Erik Jayme (2016) ‘Wilhelm Wengler als Internationalprivatrechtler - eine persönliche Erinnerung und Würdigung’ Zeitschrift für ausländisches öffentliches Recht und Völkerrecht 579.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gerhard Kegel (1996) (ed) Soergel BGB Band 10, 12th edn, Kohlhammer: Stuttgart.

    Google Scholar 

  • Steffen Klump, Volker Rieble, Manfred Löwisch (2020) (eds), Staudinger BGB §§328-345 BGB, Sellier/de Gruyter: Berlin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Christian Koenig and Andreas Neumann (2009) ‘Standardisierung – ein Tatbestand des Kartellrechts?’ Wirtschaft und Wettbewerb 382.

    Google Scholar 

  • Torsten Körber (2013) Standardessentielle Patente, FRAND-Verpflichtungen und Kartellrecht, Nomos: Baden-Baden.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thomas Kühnen (2020) Handbuch der Patentverletzung, 12th edn, Wolters Kluwer: Alphen aan den Rijn.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ole Lando (1987) ‘The EEC Convention on the Law Applicable to Contractual Obligations’ Common Market Law Review 159.

    Google Scholar 

  • Matthias Leistner (2019) ‘European Experiences: EU and Germany’ in Reto Hilty and Kung-Chung Liu (eds), SEPS, SSOS and FRAND, Routledge: London.

    Google Scholar 

  • ——— and Verena Roder (2016) ‘Die Rechtsprechung des EuGH zum Unionsurheberrecht aus methodischer Sicht - zugleich ein Beitrag zur Fortentwicklung des europäischen Privatrechts im Mehrebenensystem’ Zeitschrift für die gesamte Privatrechtswissenschaft 129.

    Google Scholar 

  • Manfred Löwisch, Volker Rieble, Hansjörg Otto and Roland Schwarze (2020) (eds) Staudinger BGB §§315-326 BGB, Sellier/de Gruyter: Berlin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stefan Maaßen (2006) Normung, Standardisierung und Immaterialgüterrechte, Carl Heymanns: Cologne.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ulrich Magnus (2016) (ed) Staudinger BGB Einleitung zu Rom I-VO, Art 1-10 Rom I-VO, Internationales Vertragsrecht 1, Sellier / de Gruyter: Berlin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Matthias Malzer (2013) Vertragsverbünde und Vertragssysteme, Nomos: Baden-Baden.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Hein-Peter Mansel and Dieter Henrich (2015) (eds) Staudinger BGB Art 43-46 EGBGB, Sellier/de Gruyter: Berlin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mary-Rose McGuire (2018) ‘Die FRAND-Erklärung’ Gewerblicher Rechtsschutz und Urheberrecht 128.

    Google Scholar 

  • ——— and Lea Tochtermann (2016) ‘Lizenzverträge im IZVR und IPR’ Gewerblicher Rechtsschutz und Urheberrecht, Praxis im Immaterialgüter- und Wettbewerbsrecht 427.

    Google Scholar 

  • Michael McParland (2015) The Rome I Regulation on the Law Applicable to Contractual Obligations, Oxford University Press: Oxford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thomas Nägele and Sven Jacobs (2009) ‘Zwangslizenzen im Patentrecht ̶ unter besonderer Berücksichtigung des kartellrechtlichen Zwangslizenzeinwands im Patentverletzungsprozess’ Wettbewerb in Recht und Praxis 1062.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peter Picht (2013) Strategisches Verhalten bei der Nutzung von Patenten in Standardisierungsverfahren aus der Sicht des europäischen Kartellrechts, Stämpfli: Bern.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thomas Rauscher (2016) (ed) EuZPR/EuIPR, 4th edn, Otto Schmidt Verlag: Cologne.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kurt Rebmann, Franz Jürgen Säcker und Roland Rixecker (1998) (eds) Münchener Kommentar zum BGB, 3rd edn, Beck: Munich.

    Google Scholar 

  • Christoph Reithmann and Dieter Martiny (2015) (eds) Internationales Vertragsrecht, 8th edn, Otto Schmidt Verlag: Cologne.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Franz Jürgen Säcker, Roland Rixecker, Hartmut Oetker and Bettina Limperg (2018) (eds) Münchener Kommentar zum BGB, 7th edn, Beck: Munich.

    Google Scholar 

  • ——— (2019) Münchener Kommentar zum BGB, 8th edn, Beck: Munich.

    Google Scholar 

  • ——— (2021) Münchener Kommentar zum BGB, 8th edn, Beck: Munich.

    Google Scholar 

  • Adolf Schnitzer (1968) ‘Die funktionelle Anknüpfung im internationalen Vertragsrecht’ in Wilhelm Schönenberger (ed) Festgabe für Wilhelm Schönenberger zum 70. Geburtstag, Universitätsverlag: Freiburg 387.

    Google Scholar 

  • ——— (1974) ‘Betrachtungen zur Gegenwart und Zukunft des Internationalen Privatrechts’ Rabels Zeitschrift für ausländisches und internationales Privatrecht 317.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rainer Schulte (2017) (ed) Patentgesetz mit EPÜ, 10th edn, Carl Heymanns: Cologne.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ulrike Stimmel (2010) ‘Die Beurteilung von Lizenzverträgen unter der Rom I-Verordnung’ Gewerblicher Rechtsschutz und Urheberrecht International 783.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peter Stone (2018) Stone on Private International Law in the European Union, 4th edn, Edward Elgar: Cheltenham.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Joseph Straus (2011) ‘Das Regime des European Telecommunications Standards Institute-ETSI’ Gewerblicher Rechtsschutz und Urheberrecht International 469.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gunther Teubner (2004) Netzwerk als Vertragsverbund, Nomos: Baden-Baden.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lea Tochtermann (2020) ‘Das Schicksal der ETSI FRAND-Erklärung bei Übertragung des SEP’ Gewerblicher Rechtsschutz und Urheberrecht 905.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hanns Ullrich (2010) ‘Patente und technische Normen: Konflikt und Komplementarität in patent- und wettbewerbsrechtlicher Sicht’ in Matthias Leistner (ed) Europäische Perspektiven des Geistigen Eigentums, Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sven Vetter (2019) ‘Übergang der FRAND-Verpflichtung mit dem Patenterwerb’ Gewerblicher Rechtsschutz und Urheberrecht 704.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rolf Weber and Salim Rizvi (2011) ‘FRAND - Versuch einer Strukturierung’ Zeitschrift des Bernischen Juristenvereins 433.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sebastian Wündisch and Stephan Bauer (2010) ‘Patent-Cross-Lizenzverträge - Terra incognita?’ Gewerblicher Rechtsschutz und Urheberrecht International 641.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Ludwig Maximilian University (LMU), Munich, Germany

    Matthias Leistner & Lukas Kleeberger

Authors
  1. Matthias Leistner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Lukas Kleeberger
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Matthias Leistner .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Law Institute, Carl von Ossietzky University Oldenburg, Oldenburg, Germany

    Christine Godt

  2. Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition, Munich, Germany

    Matthias Lam**

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2023 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer-Verlag GmbH, DE, part of Springer Nature

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Leistner, M., Kleeberger, L. (2023). FRAND Declarations and the ‘Third-Party Effect’: A Contract Law and Competition Law Perspective. In: Godt, C., Lam**, M. (eds) A Critical Mind. MPI Studies on Intellectual Property and Competition Law, vol 30. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-65974-8_7

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-65974-8_7

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-662-65973-1

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-662-65974-8

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation