1 definition by frey54
Layman: what beautiful day!
Lawyer: NO! it's a horrible day filled with legal issues! But fear not, because I am reasonably convinced that we can fix the problem of the possible undermining of competition law in the UPC regime, that will manifest itself as the UPC not allowing competiton law defenses in 'hold up' standard essential patent cases as the basis for a denial of a preliminary injunction in a infringement case even if the proprietor has given an offer that is not nessecarily against the practice of giving licenses on FRAND (Fair Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory) terms, but none the less has rejected an offer from the alledged infringer that certainly does fall within the scope of FRAND terms, that is likely to appear because of the inherent risks of doctrinal isolation, by simply broadening the scope of the indispensability test, thus, not only allowing a competition law defense because the would-be licensee intends to offer a new product or service that the propritor does not provide and there is a potential consumer demand for this product or service, without there being any objectively justifiable reasons for the refusal and that the refusal must must entail an elimination of competition in a secondary market but also if the proprietor is dominant in the sector and the would be licensee gives an offer that falls within the scope of FRAND terms, even though it might be lower than what the proprietors usual fees are.
Layman: The who the where and the what now?
Lawyer: NO! it's a horrible day filled with legal issues! But fear not, because I am reasonably convinced that we can fix the problem of the possible undermining of competition law in the UPC regime, that will manifest itself as the UPC not allowing competiton law defenses in 'hold up' standard essential patent cases as the basis for a denial of a preliminary injunction in a infringement case even if the proprietor has given an offer that is not nessecarily against the practice of giving licenses on FRAND (Fair Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory) terms, but none the less has rejected an offer from the alledged infringer that certainly does fall within the scope of FRAND terms, that is likely to appear because of the inherent risks of doctrinal isolation, by simply broadening the scope of the indispensability test, thus, not only allowing a competition law defense because the would-be licensee intends to offer a new product or service that the propritor does not provide and there is a potential consumer demand for this product or service, without there being any objectively justifiable reasons for the refusal and that the refusal must must entail an elimination of competition in a secondary market but also if the proprietor is dominant in the sector and the would be licensee gives an offer that falls within the scope of FRAND terms, even though it might be lower than what the proprietors usual fees are.
Layman: The who the where and the what now?
by frey54 May 19, 2016