Sittings · Compare
What changed
Amendment 1
Proposal for a regulationRegulation
Recital 2
Amendment 2
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 3
Amendment 3
Or. en
Proposal for a regulation
Justification
The amendments reflects the fact that the European Union competence and jurisdiction is limited to European patents, and as such the Union does not have jurisdiction in respect of patent rights granted by non-EU states.
Amendment 2
Proposal for a Regulation
Recital 4
Amendment 4
Or. en
Proposal for a regulation
Justification
The proposed Regulation is based on the understanding that there are concerns about SEP licensing and, in particular, about SEP licensing in future IoT industries. However, current evidence is inconclusive (see the "Empirical Assessment"), and the proposed measures are therefore in contrast with the Better Regulation principles, which require that any intervention in the markets is evidence-based. The Regulation should therefore not apply where significant difficulties or inefficiencies are not observed.
Amendment 3
Proposal for a Regulation
Recital 5
Or. en
Justification
Considering that there is no evidence of market failure in the impact assessment, the recital should be deleted and, more generally, there should not be retroactive effect (unless duly justified).
Amendment 4
Proposal for a Regulation
Recital 6
Or. en
Justification
The recital lacks a clear rationale and a clear scope. Regulations need total clarity as not to create legal uncertainty.
Amendment 5
Proposal for a regulationRegulation
Recital 8
Or. en
Justification
The amendments reflects the fact that the European Union competence and jurisdiction is limited to European patents, and as such the Union does not have jurisdiction in respect of patent rights granted by non-EU states.
Amendment 6
Proposal for a regulationRegulation
Recital 1310
Or. en
Justification
Determination of validity and infringement of patent procedures are a prerequisite to any EU court determination of FRAND terms. It should therefore not be delayed by the FRAND determination procedure as provided in the COM Proposal.
Amendment 7
Proposal for a regulationRegulation
Recital 1513
Or. en
Justification
For consistency with the deletion of the aggregate royalty mechanism.
Amendment 8
Proposal for a regulationRegulation
Recital 1615
Or. en
Justification
For consistency with the deletion of the aggregate royalty mechanism.
Amendment 9
Proposal for a regulationRegulation
Recital 1816
Or. en
Justification
A provision for SEP holders to collectively set an aggregate royalty for their SEPs risks a breach of competition law principles. The aggregate royalty may, in any event, be calculated from individual rates that SEP holders are encouraged to publish. The determination of an aggregate royalty for an entire standard and specific use cases that the Commission proposes is fraught with difficulty and it has so far only been attempted a few times by national courts outside the EU. The few such cases have so far clearly demonstrated that the determination of an aggregate royalty for SEPs is a task that belongs to the courts of law. More generally, the Commission proposal appears to allow top-down price regulation, which is an infringement of Union principles unless there is a clear evidence of market failure (which in this case is absent). This provision should therefore be removed.
Amendment 10
Proposal for a regulationRegulation
Recital 2018
Or. en
Justification
For consistency with the deletion of the aggregate royalty mechanism.
Amendment 11
Proposal for a regulationRegulation
Recital 2220
Or. en
Justification
This provision is not compatible with the fundamental property right, granted under Article 17(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (2000/C 364/01) TFEU, namely the right to damages, and its non-observance should not be allowed merely in order to encourage compliance with an administrative procedure. It also runs counter Article13(1) of the Enforcement Directive (2004/48/EC).
Amendment 12
Proposal for a regulationRegulation
Recital 2623
Or. en
Justification
The EUIPO is not a court. Removal from the register renders a patent unenforceable.
Amendment 13
Proposal for a regulationRegulation
Recital 3325
Or. en
Justification
Essentiality checks are highly time consuming and it would be a too big work burden to redo annually.
Amendment 14
Proposal for a regulationRegulation
Recital 3426
Or. en
Justification
The scope for implementers to each nominate up to 100 patents per year for essentiality checking has the potential to overwhelm the competence centre and could be used to "game" the system and cause further delays to licensing.
Amendment 15
Proposal for a regulationRegulation
Recital 3530
Or. en
Amendment 16
Proposal for a regulationRegulation
Recital 3633
Or. en
Justification
The Regulation should not affect access to courts which should remain available during FRAND determination.
Amendment 17
Proposal for a regulationRegulation
Recital 4034
Or. en
Justification
The one-sided continuation can be used in bad faith to cause further delay without risk. Furthermore, because a one-sided continuation is inherently unreliable and will be biased against the absent party, it is effectively a punitive measure. It seems inappropriate to introduce punitive measures in this Regulation.
Amendment 18
Proposal for a regulationRegulation
Recital 4435
Or. en
Justification
Commitment to comply is not binding and can be manipulated according to one's own interests. Validity and infringement need to be addressed at the same time as FRAND determination. This provision further assists a bad faith one-sided continuation by placing the continuing party at a litigation advantage. Manipulation of the litigation positions, i.e. respective access to justice, to encourage use of this procedure is inadvisable for the reasons given above and is probably unlawful. A defence of lack of essentiality or invalidity takes time to conclude; this is another reason why the FRAND determination should proceed in parallel with any court proceedings.
Amendment 19
Proposal for a regulationRegulation
Recital 4537
Or. en
Justification
This AM is needed for consistency with the idea that both parties have to agree to continue the FRAND determination (no one-sided continuation).
Amendment 20
Proposal for a regulationRegulation
Recital 4640
Or. en
Justification
It should be allowed to any party to make the request to terminate the procedure.
Amendment 21
Proposal for a regulationRegulation
Recital 4742
Or. en
Justification
The cases mentioned in footnote 40 concerned consumer disputes with service providers under the Universal Services Directive. The CJEU held that a delay of 30 days for a mandatory dispute resolution procedure, in which there were no fees charged and the procedure itself was "transparent simple and inexpensive", was not unlawful, provided that interim measures remained available where necessary. This was in the context of reducing the workload on the courts concerning consumer debt for universal services, and the cases did not concern property rights of any kind and are not comparable to the context of this Regulation.Case C-75/16 similarly concerns consumer disputes with traders and a mandatory mediation scheme intended to protect consumers, and the outcome of that case is, once more, not comparable with the scheme proposed in the Regulation.
Amendment 22
Proposal for a regulationRegulation
Recital 4844
Or. en
Justification
For consistency with the deletion of the aggregate royalty mechanism.
Amendment 23
Proposal for a regulationRegulation
Recital 4946
Or. en
Justification
The European Commission has been actively promoting and funding the participation of European SMEs in EU standards efforts and the patenting of their inventions. This regulation should be consistent with this policy, and it should seek to promote European technological ambitions, including fostering the growth of EU technology champions.
Amendment 24
Proposal for a regulationRegulation
Article 1 – paragraph 2
Recital 47
Or. en
Justification
Only use cases to the extent there is proof that they do not give rise to inefficiencies.
Amendment 25
Proposal for a regulationRegulation
Article 1 – paragraph 3
Recital 48
Or. en
Justification
Only future standard and use cases should be covered in this Regulation, in order to ensure legal certainty.
Amendment 26
Proposal for a regulationRegulation
Article 1 – paragraph 4
Recital 49
Or. en
Justification
For consistency with the deletion of the aggregate royalty mechanism.
Amendment 27
Proposal for a regulationRegulation
Article 1 – paragraph 52 – introductory part
Or. en
Justification
The Regulation should apply to future standards, to have legal certainty.
Amendment 28
Proposal for a regulationRegulation
Article 21 – paragraph 12 – point 1a
Or. en
Amendment 29
Proposal for a regulationRegulation
Article 21 – paragraph 12 – point 7b
Or. en
Amendment 30
Proposal for a regulationRegulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – pointparagraph 103
Or. en
Justification
Paragraph no longer necessary under the revised structure.
Amendment 31
Proposal for a regulationRegulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – pointparagraph 164
Or. en
Justification
The proposed Regulation is based on the understanding that there are concerns about SEP licensing and, in particular, about SEP licensing in future IoT industries. However, current evidence is inconclusive (see the "Empirical Assessment"), and the proposed measures are therefore in contrast with the Better Regulation principles, which require that any intervention in the markets is evidence-based. The Regulation should therefore not apply where significant difficulties or inefficiencies are not observed.
Amendment 32
Proposal for a regulationRegulation
Article 32 – paragraph 21 – point f1
Or. en
Justification
The Regulation cannot extend beyond European patents that are essential and for which a FRAND commitment has been made.
Amendment 33
Proposal for a regulationRegulation
Article 32 – paragraph 31 – point 7
Or. en
Justification
Unless an implementer intends to use inventions that are protected by a European patent the implementer has no legal nexus with the European Union (unless they are resident in a Member State).
Amendment 34
Proposal for a regulationRegulation
Article 42 – paragraph 41 – point c10
Or. en
Justification
No longer necessary under the revised structure.
Amendment 35
Proposal for a regulationRegulation
Article 42 – paragraph 41 – point f11
Or. en
Justification
See definition of SEP.
Amendment 36
Proposal for a regulationRegulation
Article 52 – paragraph 21 – point d15
Or. en
Justification
No longer necessary under the revised structure.
Amendment 37
Proposal for a regulationRegulation
Article 52 – paragraph 21 – point g16
Or. en
Justification
The current text of the definition of "patent family" is very difficult to implement because "cover the same invention" is open to interpretation and has a subjective element. The definition has important effects – see footnote 60 at page 68 of the Pilot Study for Essentiality Assessment of Standard Essential Patents published by the JRC – we therefore suggest using the ETSI patent family definition.
Amendment 38
Proposal for a regulationRegulation
Article 53 – paragraph 2 – point hf
Or. en
Amendment 39
Proposal for a Regulation
Article 64 – paragraph 13 – point c
Or. en
Justification
Data expressed by numerical values such as royalty rates, product volumes, etc cannot be reduced to a non-confidential form.
It is unnecessary, burdensome and costly to require identification of all sections for which the standard is essential. Such a provision is likely to lead to further litigation and is not necessary for the purposes of establishing whether a patent is essential and therefore required to be licensed.
Amendment 40
Proposal for a regulationRegulation
Article 74 – paragraph 14 a– (new)point b
Or. en
Justification
The COM proposal seems to be unnecessary because under Article 9 patent pools are required to publish lists of licensees by sector. For significant patent pools, this additional requirement would impose a large administrative burden. This amendment is also consistent with the deletion of the aggregate royalty and of the possibility to suspend SEPs from the register.
Amendment 41
Proposal for a regulationRegulation
Article 8
Article 4 – paragraph 4 – point f
Or. en
Justification
The COM proposal seems to be unnecessary because under Article 9 patent pools are required to publish lists of licensees by sector. For significant patent pools this additional requirement would impose a large administrative burden. This AM is also consistent with the deletion of the aggregate royalty and of the possibility to suspend SEPs from the register.
Amendment 42
Proposal for a regulationRegulation
Article 124 – paragraph 14 – point g
Or. en
Justification
The COM proposal seems to be unnecessary because under Article 9 patent pools are required to publish lists of licensees by sector. For significant patent pools this additional requirement would impose a large administrative burden. This AM is also consistent with the deletion of the aggregate royalty and of the possibility to suspend SEPs from the register.
Amendment 43
Proposal for a regulationRegulation
Article 124 – paragraph 2 a (new)5
Or. en
Justification
The registration requirements constitute a heavy administrative burden and it is unjustified for the Commission to continuously change the set of requirements.
Amendment 44
Proposal for a regulationRegulation
Article 15
Article 5 – paragraph 2 – point a
Or. en
Justification
The registration of patent bibliographic data is administratively burdensome, costly, and duplicative, since all of this information (and much more) is readily available free of charge on the European Patent Office's "Espacenet" online database, which is a primary tool used by patent professionals.
Amendment 45
Proposal for a regulationRegulation
Article 16
Article 5 – paragraph 2 – point d
Or. en
Amendment 46
Proposal for a regulationRegulation
Article 17
Article 5 – paragraph 2 – point f
Or. en
Justification
Deletion of point (f) is consistent with the suggestions to protect confidentiality put forward in other AMs.
Amendment 47
Proposal for a regulationRegulation
Article 18
Article 5 – paragraph 2 – point g
Or. en
Justification
Deletion of point (g) is consistent with the deletion of aggregate royalty put forward in other AMs.
Amendment 48
Proposal for a regulationRegulation
Article 195 – paragraph 12 – point h
Or. en
Justification
Deletion of point (h) is consistent with the deletion of aggregate royalty put forward in other AMs.
Amendment 49
Proposal for a regulationRegulation
Article 196 – paragraph 21
Or. en
Justification
Data expressed by numerical values such as royalty rates, product volumes, etc cannot be reduced to a non-confidential form.
Amendment 50
Proposal for a regulationRegulation
Article 227 –- paragraph 3- 1a (new)
Or. en
Amendment 51
Proposal for a regulationRegulation
Article 227 – paragraph 41 – introductory part
Or. en
Justification
Implementers using, or intending to use, standardised technologies should seek licenses for their use. The starting point is to inform the EUIPO competence centre of the uses they make. SEP holders are not in a position to do this, and it is necessary for implementers to engage.
Amendment 52
Proposal for a regulationRegulation
Article 237 – paragraph 31 – point a
Or. en
Amendment 53
Proposal for a regulationRegulation
Article 237 – paragraph 4 –- introductory1a part(new)
Or. en
Amendment 54
Proposal for a regulationRegulation
Article 238 – paragraph 51 – introductory part
Or. en
Amendment 55
Proposal for a regulationRegulation
Article 268 – paragraph 21 – point a
Or. en
Amendment 56
Proposal for a regulationRegulation
Article 268 – paragraph 51 – introductorypoint partb
Or. en
Justification
Point (b) is removed as this provision would require the SEP holder to act in breach of confidence and in breach of the contractual provisions governing the patent pool.
Amendment 57
Proposal for a regulationRegulation
Article 269 – paragraph 51 – point bg
Or. en
Justification
For consistency with the revised Article 7.
Amendment 58
Proposal for a regulationRegulation
Article 2710 – paragraph 2
Or. en
Justification
Alternative dispute resolution proceedings are voluntary, contractual in nature and almost invariably agreed to be confidential. Usually, the existence of the proceedings is itself confidential. This provision could be read as endorsing or permitting breach of confidence and breach of contract.
Amendment 59
Proposal for a regulationRegulation
Article 29 – paragraph 5
Article 11
Or. en
Justification
Alternative dispute resolution proceedings are voluntary, contractual in nature and confidential. This provision could endorse or permit breach of confidence/contract. It would undermine attempts at alternative dispute resolution for SEP licenses worldwide, nullifying the value of similar systems established by international arbitration institutions (e.g. ICC, LCIA, WIPO, AAA and many others). In addition, the EUIPO cannot be forcibly introduced to the confidentiality regimes of all SEP licensing resolution mechanisms, which are often established under non-EU jurisdictions.
Amendment 60
Proposal for a regulationRegulation
Article 2913 – paragraph 63
Or. en
Justification
Alternative dispute resolution proceedings are voluntary, contractual in nature and almost invariably agreed to be confidential. Usually, the existence of the proceedings is itself confidential. This provision could lead to breach of confidence and breach of contract.
Amendment 61
Proposal for a regulationRegulation
Article 3613 – paragraph 1 – point d4
Or. en
Justification
For consistency with the revised structure.
Amendment 62
Proposal for a regulationRegulation
Article 36 – paragraph 1 – point f
Article 15
Or. en
Justification
The provision for SEP holders to collectively set an aggregate royalty for their SEPs risks a breach of competition law principles. The aggregate royalty may, in any event, be calculated from individual rates that SEP holders are encouraged to publish. The determination of an aggregate royalty for an entire standard and specific use cases that the Commission proposes is fraught with difficulty and it has so far only been attempted a few times by national courts outside the EU. The few such cases have so far clearly demonstrated that the determination of an aggregate royalty for SEPs is a task that belongs to the courts of law. More generally, the Commission proposal appears to allow top-down price regulation, which is an infringement of Union principles unless there is a clear evidence of market failure (which in this case is absent). This provision should therefore be removed.
Amendment 63
Proposal for a regulationRegulation
Article 37 – paragraph 2
Article 16
Or. en
Justification
See comment to Article 15.
Amendment 64
Proposal for a regulationRegulation
Article 38 – paragraph 2
Article 17
Or. en
Justification
See comment to Article 15.
Amendment 65
Proposal for a regulationRegulation
Article 38 – paragraph 3 – introductory part
Article 18
Or. en
Justification
See comments to Article 15.
Amendment 66
Proposal for a regulationRegulation
Article 3819 – paragraph 31 – pointintroductory apart
Or. en
Justification
Amended to reflect the removal of aggregate royalty rate.
Amendment 67
Proposal for a regulationRegulation
Article 3819 – paragraph 3 – point b2
Or. en
Justification
Amended to reflect the previous amendment.
Amendment 68
Proposal for a regulationRegulation
Article 3820 – paragraph 4 – introductory part1
Or. en
Justification
See definition of SEP.
Amendment 69
Proposal for a regulationRegulation
Article 3820 – paragraph 4 – point a2
Or. en
Justification
A recommendation is not a basis for essentiality; see the ETSI definitions.
Amendment 70
Proposal for a regulationRegulation
Article 3822 – paragraph 4 – point b
Or. en
Justification
This provision has a wholly disproportionate effect since a suspended patent becomes unenforceable.
Amendment 71
Proposal for a regulationRegulation
Article 3822 – paragraph 4 a (new)5
Or. en
Justification
This provision has a wholly disproportionate effect, since a suspended patent becomes unenforceable.
Amendment 72
Proposal for a regulationRegulation
Article 3823 – paragraph 5
Or. en
Justification
This provision has a wholly disproportionate effect since a suspended patent becomes unenforceable.
Amendment 73
Proposal for a regulationRegulation
Article 39
Article 23 – paragraph 6
Or. en
Justification
This provision has a wholly disproportionate effect since a suspended patent becomes unenforceable.
Amendment 74
Proposal for a regulationRegulation
Article 42 – paragraph 1
Article 24
Or. en
Justification
This provision is incompatible with the fundamental property right granted under Article 17(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (2000/C 364/01) TFEU and its non-observance should not be allowed merely in order to encourage compliance with an administrative procedure.
Amendment 75
Proposal for a regulationRegulation
Article 4226 – paragraph 2 – introductory part
Or. en
Justification
For consistency with the deletion of the aggregate royalty mechanism.
Amendment 76
Proposal for a regulationRegulation
Article 4426 – paragraph 12 – point a
Or. en
Amendment 77
Proposal for a regulationRegulation
Article 4426 – paragraph 2 – point b
Or. en
Amendment 78
Proposal for a regulationRegulation
Article 4426 – paragraph 32 – point c
Or. en
Amendment 79
Proposal for a regulationRegulation
Article 4526 – paragraph 15 – introductory part
Or. en
Justification
For consistency with the deletion of the aggregate royalty mechanism.
Amendment 80
Proposal for a regulationRegulation
Article 4526 – paragraph 25 – point b
Or. en
Justification
For consistency with the deletion of the aggregate royalty mechanism.
Amendment 81
Proposal for a regulationRegulation
Article 4527 – paragraph 32
Or. en
Justification
The skillsets required for essentiality checking (evaluators) and for FRAND determination (conciliators) are very different. For instance, evaluators require engineering and legal skills, whereas conciliators require economic and negotiation skills.
Amendment 82
Proposal for a regulationRegulation
Article 4529 – paragraph 51
Or. en
Justification
More time is necessary to define the correct methodology.
Amendment 83
Proposal for a regulationRegulation
Article 4629 – paragraph 1 – point a6
Or. en
Justification
There are many implementers and there will only ever be more. This provision leaves scope for implementers to collectively challenge very large numbers of registered SEPs, albeit at their own expense. The consequent burden on the EUIPO is likely to lead to delays, which may be used to justify delays in negotiating SEP licenses.
Amendment 84
Proposal for a regulationRegulation
Article 4632 – paragraph 1 –3 pointa b(new)
Or. en
Justification
The positive case also needs to be provided for, as in the current AM.
Amendment 85
Proposal for a regulationRegulation
Article 4634 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 24
Or. en
Justification
Please see comments to the corresponding recital.
Amendment 86
Proposal for a regulationRegulation
Article 4634 – paragraph 2 – introductory part5
Or. en
Justification
No longer necessary under the revised structure.
Amendment 87
Proposal for a regulationRegulation
Article 4737 – paragraph 2
Or. en
Justification
The FRAND determination should run in parallel with any court proceedings.
Amendment 88
Proposal for a regulationRegulation
Article 5038 – paragraph 12
Or. en
Justification
The additional requirement for commitment is a quasi-judicial device to justify a one-sided continuation. However, the commitment made has no legal force or meaning since it can be later withdrawn (per Art.46(1)(b)) and the reasoned determination may in any case be rejected (per Art.56(1)(c). The "commitment" aspect is unnecessary where a FRAND determination proceeds because both parties agree to participate.
Amendment 89
Proposal for a regulationRegulation
Article 5038 – paragraph 3 – introductory part
Or. en
Justification
The amendment provides that the FRAND determination will only continue if both parties agree to participate.
Amendment 90
Proposal for a regulationRegulation
Article 5538 – paragraph 13 – point a
Or. en
Amendment 91
Proposal for a regulationRegulation
Article 5538 – paragraph 23 – point b
Or. en
Amendment 92
Proposal for a regulationRegulation
Article 5638 – paragraph 13 – point bc
Or. en
Amendment 93
Proposal for a regulationRegulation
Article 5638 – paragraph 14 – pointintroductory cpart
Or. en
Justification
The amendment provides that the FRAND determination will only continue if both parties agree to participate.
Amendment 94
Proposal for a regulationRegulation
Article 5638 – paragraph 14 – point da
Or. en
Amendment 95
Proposal for a regulationRegulation
Article 5638 – paragraph 14 – point d a (new)b
Or. en
Amendment 96
Proposal for a regulationRegulation
Article 61
Article 38 – paragraph 4 – point c
Or. en
Amendment 97
Proposal for a regulationRegulation
Article 6338 – paragraph 24 – point ad
Or. en
Amendment 98
Proposal for a regulationRegulation
Article 6338 – paragraph 2 – point b5
Or. en
Justification
No longer necessary under the revised structure.
Amendment 99
Proposal for a regulationRegulation
Article 6338 – paragraph 3 – point a6
Or. en
Justification
For consistency with the amendment that provides that the FRAND determination will only continue if both parties agree to participate.
Amendment 100
Proposal for a regulationRegulation
Article 6339 – paragraph 3 – point b1
Or. en
Justification
For consistency with the amendment that provides that the FRAND determination will only continue if both parties agree to participate.
Amendment 101
Proposal for a regulationRegulation
Article 6442 – paragraph 2
Or. en
Justification
For consistency with the amendment that provides that the FRAND determination will only continue if both parties agree to participate.
Amendment 102
Proposal for a regulationRegulation
Article 66
Article 44 – paragraph 1
Or. en
Amendment 103
Proposal for a regulationRegulation
Article 6845 – paragraph 2
Or. en
Justification
For consistency with the amendment that provides that the FRAND determination will only continue if both parties agree to participate.
Amendment 104
Proposal for a regulationRegulation
Article 7045 – paragraph 13
Or. en
Justification
For consistency with the amendment that provides that the FRAND determination will only continue if both parties agree to participate.
Amendment 105
Proposal for a regulationRegulation
Article 7045 – paragraph 1 a (new)4
Or. en
Justification
No longer necessary under the revised structure.
Amendment 106
Proposal for a regulationRegulation
Article 7045 – paragraph 25
Or. en
Justification
For consistency with the amendment that provides that the FRAND determination will only continue if both parties agree to participate.
Amendment 107
Proposal for a regulationRegulation
Article 7046 – paragraph 31 – point b
Or. en
Justification
For consistency with the amendment that provides that the FRAND determination will only continue if both parties agree to participate.
Amendment 108
Proposal for a regulationRegulation
Article 7046 – paragraph 43
Or. en
Justification
For consistency with the amendment that provides that the FRAND determination will only continue if both parties agree to participate.
Amendment 109
Proposal for a regulationRegulation
Article 7247 – paragraph 2
Or. en
Justification
It should be allowed to any party to make the request to terminate the procedure.
Amendment 110
Proposal for a regulationRegulation
Article 7250 – paragraph 2 a (new)3
PROCEDURE – COMMITTEE ASKED FOR OPINION
Or. en
ANNEX: ENTITIES OR PERSONS FROM WHOM THE RAPPORTEUR HAS RECEIVED INPUT
Justification
Pursuant to Article 8 of Annex I to the Rules of Procedure, the rapporteur declares that she has received input from the following entities or persons in the preparation of the opinion, until the adoption thereof in committee:
For consistency with the deletion of the aggregate royalty mechanism.
The list above is drawn up under the exclusive responsibility of the rapporteur.
Amendment 111
FINAL VOTE BY ROLL CALL IN COMMITTEE ASKED FOR OPINION
Proposal for a Regulation
Article 54 – paragraph 3
Or. en
Justification
In some circumstances this may not be possible, for instance where the confidential information comprises values in a confidential licensing agreement with a third party.
Amendment 112
Proposal for a Regulation
Article 54 – paragraph 3 a (new)
Or. en
Amendment 113
Proposal for a Regulation
Article 54 – paragraph 3 b (new)
Or. en
Amendment 114
Proposal for a Regulation
Article 55 – paragraph 1
Or. en
Justification
For consistency with the amendment that provides that the FRAND determination will only continue if both parties agree to participate.
Amendment 115
Proposal for a Regulation
Article 55 – paragraph 2
Or. en
Justification
For consistency with the amendment that provides that the FRAND determination will only continue if both parties agree to participate.
Amendment 116
Proposal for a Regulation
Article 56 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
Or. en
Justification
This amendment is aimed at adapting the article to the revised structure.
Amendment 117
Proposal for a Regulation
Article 56 – paragraph 1 – point d a (new)
Or. en
Justification
This amendment is aimed at adapting this Article to the revised structure.
Amendment 118
Proposal for a Regulation
Article 56 – paragraph 4
Or. en
Justification
Validity is not determined or assessed in the FRAND determination. Determination of validity and infringement procedures are prerequisite to any EU court determination of FRAND terms. It should therefore not be delayed by the FRAND determination procedure in this Regulation.
Amendment 119
Proposal for a Regulation
Article 56 – paragraph 5
Or. en
Justification
No longer necessary under the revised structure.
Amendment 120
Proposal for a Regulation
Article 61 – paragraph 1
Or. en
Justification
The amendments to Article 61 seek to outline a range of possible measures to implement Option 1 of the Commission's Impact Assessment (i.e. the“SME SEP Licensing Assistance Hub”). In particular, these amendments seek to focus the competence centre on one of the main issues that this Regulation is intended to prevent, namely the reduced use of standards by EU SMEs seeking to enter new IoT markets because of SEP licensing issues.
Amendment 121
Proposal for a Regulation
Article 61 – paragraph 2
Or. en
Justification
The amendments to Article 61 seek to outline a range of possible measures to implement Option 1 of the Commission's Impact Assessment (i.e. the“SME SEP Licensing Assistance Hub”). In particular, these amendments seek to focus the competence centre on one of the main issues that this Regulation is intended to prevent, namely the reduced use of standards by EU SMEs seeking to enter new IoT markets because of SEP licensing issues.
Amendment 122
Proposal for a Regulation
Article 61 – paragraph 3
Or. en
Justification
The amendments to Article 61 seek to outline a range of possible measures to implement Option 1 of the Commission's Impact Assessment (i.e. the“SME SEP Licensing Assistance Hub”). In particular, these amendments seek to focus the competence centre on one of the main issues that this Regulation is intended to prevent, namely the reduced use of standards by EU SMEs seeking to enter new IoT markets because of SEP licensing issues.
Amendment 123
Proposal for a Regulation
Article 61 – paragraph 3 a (new)
Or. en
Justification
The amendments to Article 61 seek to outline a range of possible measures to implement Option 1 of the Commission's Impact Assessment (i.e. the“SME SEP Licensing Assistance Hub”). In particular, these amendments seek to focus the competence centre on one of the main issues that this Regulation is intended to prevent, namely the reduced use of standards by EU SMEs seeking to enter new IoT markets because of SEP licensing issues.
Amendment 124
Proposal for a Regulation
Article 61 – paragraph 3 b (new)
Or. en
Justification
These amendments flesh out the idea of an “SME SEP Licensing Assistance Hub” referenced in Option 1 of the Impact Assessment (page 30). In particular, the amendments seek to focus the competence centre on the potential future problem that the European Commission has stated that the Regulation is intended to prevent: reduced use of standards by EU SMEs seeking to enter new IoT markets because of SEP licensing issues. This focus includes conducting studies to enable the competence center to adequately advise SMEs about licensing costs in IoT markets and the annual collection of and reporting on information regarding SEP licensing activity involving SMEs.
Amendment 125
Proposal for a Regulation
Article 61 a (new)
Or. en
Justification
The agreement with WIPO in paragraph (1) is adopted from Option 1 in the Impact Assessment (at page 30). Paragraph (2) gives SMEs an option to require patent holders to mediate with them under the auspices of WIPO before initiating any infringement action. This would give SMEs the benefit of an opportunity to reach an out-of-court settlement before expending large litigation costs similar to the effect of the original FRAND Determination provisions that would be deleted elsewhere. Paragraph(3) gives SMEs the opportunity to make a commitment to accept a FRAND license on a SEP Holder-by-SEP Holder basis. If an SME makes such a commitment, the SEP Holder would be prohibited from seeking an injunction since it could enforce the commitment under contract law in a national court. Paragraph (4) expressly provides that no adverse inference should be drawn against SMEs that do not avail themselves of the safe harbors.
Amendment 126
Proposal for a Regulation
Article 63 – paragraph 2 – point a
Or. en
Justification
No longer necessary given the deletion of the aggregate royalty mechanism.
Amendment 127
Proposal for a Regulation
Article 63 – paragraph 2 – point b
Or. en
Justification
No longer necessary given the deletion of the aggregate royalty mechanism.
Amendment 128
Proposal for a Regulation
Article 63 – paragraph 3 – point a
Or. en
Justification
For consistency with previous amendments.
Amendment 129
Proposal for a Regulation
Article 63 – paragraph 3 – point b
Or. en
Justification
For consistency with previous amendments.
Amendment 130
Proposal for a Regulation
Article 64 – paragraph 2
Or. en
Justification
For consistency with the deletion of the aggregate royalty.
Amendment 131
Proposal for a Regulation
Article 66
Or. en
Justification
This article should be deleted in line with the proposal to change the scope of this Regulation (i.e. applying it only to new standards).
Amendment 132
Proposal for a Regulation
Article 68 – paragraph 2
Or. en
Justification
The integration is aimed at specifying that no implementing act should be adopted without an opinion of the committee.
Amendment 133
Proposal for a Regulation
Article 69 – paragraph 1
Or. en
Justification
It is necessary to ensure legal clarity. The scope needs to be defined clearly in advance.
Amendment 134
Proposal for a Regulation
Article 72 – paragraph 2
Regulation (EU) 1001/2017
Article 72 ¬ paragraph
Or. en
Justification
More time is needed for setting up the structure envisaged by the Regulation.