BETA

95 Amendments of Catharina RINZEMA related to 2023/0133(COD)

Catharina RINZEMA, Bart GROOTHUIS

Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1 a (new)

1a. This Regulation shall only apply to patents that are in force after the entry into force of this Regulation.

2023/10/31
Committee: JURI

Catharina RINZEMA, Bart GROOTHUIS

Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 2 – introductory part

2. This Regulation shall apply to patents that are essential to a standard that has been published by a standard development organisation, to which the SEP holder has made a commitment to license its SEPs on fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory (FRAND) terms and conditions and that is not subject to a royalty-free intellectual property policy, if the Commission has determined with regard to the standard concerned, by means of a delegated act pursuant to Article 67, that the functioning of the internal market is severely distorted.

2023/10/31
Committee: JURI

Catharina RINZEMA, Bart GROOTHUIS

Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 2 – point a

~~(a) after the entry into force of this Regulation, with the exceptions provided in paragraph 3;~~deleted

2023/10/31
Committee: JURI

Catharina RINZEMA, Bart GROOTHUIS

Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 2 – point b

~~(b) before the entry into force of this Regulation, in accordance with Article 66.~~deleted

2023/10/31
Committee: JURI

Catharina RINZEMA, Bart GROOTHUIS, Annie SCHREIJER-PIERIK, Antonius MANDERS

Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 3

~~3. Articles 17 and 18 and Article 34(1) shall not apply to SEPs to the extent that they are implemented for use cases identified by the Commission in accordance with paragraph 4.~~deleted

2023/10/31
Committee: JURI

Catharina RINZEMA, Bart GROOTHUIS

Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 4

4. Where there is sufficient evidence that, as regards identified use cases of certain standards or parts thereof, SEP licensing negotiations on FRAND terms do not give rise to significant difficulties or inefficiencies affecting the functioning of the internal market, the Commission shall, by [OJ: please insert the date: 24 months from the date of entry into force of this Regulation], and after an appropriate consultation process, by means of a delegated act pursuant to Article 67, establish a list of such use cases, standards or parts thereof~~, for the purposes of paragraph 3~~.

2023/10/31
Committee: JURI

Catharina RINZEMA, Bart GROOTHUIS, Annie SCHREIJER-PIERIK, Antonius MANDERS

Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 2 – point f

~~(f) administer a process for aggregate royalty determination;~~deleted

2023/10/31
Committee: JURI

Adrián VÁZQUEZ LÁZARA, Catharina RINZEMA

Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 2 – point g – point i

(i) publishing the results and reasoned opinions of the ~~essentiality checks and~~ non-confidential reports of the FRAND determinations;

2023/10/31
Committee: JURI

Catharina RINZEMA, Bart GROOTHUIS, Annie SCHREIJER-PIERIK, Antonius MANDERS

Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 4 – point b

~~(b) the grant or transfer of a licence through patent pools, where applicable pursuant to Article 9;~~deleted

2023/10/31
Committee: JURI

Catharina RINZEMA, Bart GROOTHUIS

Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 4 – point c

(c) information on whether an essentiality check or peer evaluation haves been performed and ~~reference to the result~~, unless not possible because of contractual obligations agreed upon between parties, the outcome of that process;

2023/10/31
Committee: JURI

Adrián VÁZQUEZ LÁZARA, Catharina RINZEMA

Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 4 – point c

(c) information on whether an essentiality check ~~or peer evaluation have been performed~~has been performed by a competent court of a Member State and reference to the result; if from a final judgement

2023/10/31
Committee: JURI

Catharina RINZEMA, Bart GROOTHUIS, Annie SCHREIJER-PIERIK, Antonius MANDERS

Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 4 – point f

(f) date of publication of information pursuant to Article 19(1) ~~in conjunction with Article 14(7), Article 15(4) and Article 18(11)~~;

2023/10/31
Committee: JURI

Catharina RINZEMA, Bart GROOTHUIS, Annie SCHREIJER-PIERIK, Antonius MANDERS

Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 4 – point g

~~(g) the date of suspension of the SEP from the Register pursuant to Article 22;~~deleted

2023/10/31
Committee: JURI

Catharina RINZEMA, Bart GROOTHUIS, Annie SCHREIJER-PIERIK, Antonius MANDERS

Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 2 – point f

~~(f) non-confidential information on FRAND determinations pursuant to Article 11;~~deleted

2023/10/31
Committee: JURI

Catharina RINZEMA, Bart GROOTHUIS, Annie SCHREIJER-PIERIK, Antonius MANDERS

Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 2 – point g

~~(g) information on aggregate royalties pursuant to Articles 15, 16 and 17;~~deleted

2023/10/31
Committee: JURI

Catharina RINZEMA, Bart GROOTHUIS, Annie SCHREIJER-PIERIK, Antonius MANDERS

Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 2 – point h

~~(h) expert opinions referred to in Article 18;~~deleted

2023/10/31
Committee: JURI

Adrián VÁZQUEZ LÁZARA, Catharina RINZEMA

Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 2 – point j

~~(j) SEPs selected for essentiality checks pursuant to Article 29, the reasoned opinions or the final reasoned opinions pursuant to Article 33;~~deleted

2023/10/31
Committee: JURI

Catharina RINZEMA, Bart GROOTHUIS

Proposal for a regulation
Article 8 – paragraph 1 – point b

(b) any essentiality check ~~prior to [OJ: please insert the date = 24 months from entry into force of this regulation]~~ by an independent evaluator in the context of afor example, a patent pool, identifying the SEP registration number, the identity of the patent pool and its administrator, and the evaluator.

2023/10/31
Committee: JURI

Catharina RINZEMA, Bart GROOTHUIS, Annie SCHREIJER-PIERIK, Antonius MANDERS

Proposal for a regulation
Article 9 – paragraph 1 – point c

~~(c) process for evaluating SEPs;~~deleted

2023/10/31
Committee: JURI

Catharina RINZEMA, Bart GROOTHUIS, Annie SCHREIJER-PIERIK, Antonius MANDERS

Proposal for a regulation
Article 9 – paragraph 1 – point d

~~(d) roster of evaluators having residence in the Union;~~deleted

2023/10/31
Committee: JURI

Catharina RINZEMA, Bart GROOTHUIS, Annie SCHREIJER-PIERIK, Antonius MANDERS

Proposal for a regulation
Article 9 – paragraph 1 – point e

~~(e) list of evaluated SEPs and list of SEPs being licens~~deleted;

2023/10/31
Committee: JURI

Adrián VÁZQUEZ LÁZARA, Catharina RINZEMA

Proposal for a regulation
Article 13 – paragraph 2 – point a

(a) administering the registrations of SEPs~~, essentiality checks~~ and conciliation proceedings pursuant to this Regulation;

2023/10/31
Committee: JURI

Catharina RINZEMA, Bart GROOTHUIS, Annie SCHREIJER-PIERIK, Antonius MANDERS

Proposal for a regulation
Article 15

Notification of an aggregate royalty to the 1. more Member States for which FRAND commitments have been made may jointly notify the competence centre the aggregate royalty for the SEPs covering a standard. 2. accordance with paragraph (1) shall contain the information on the following: (a) standard; (b) that define the standard; (c) making the notification referred to in paragraph (1); (d) holders referred to in paragraph (1) represent from all SEP holders; (e) they own collectively from all SEPs forArticle 15 deleted competence centre Holders of SEPs in force in one or The notification made in the commercial name of the the list of technical specifications the names of the SEP holders the estimated percentage the SEP the est~~andard; (f) SEP holders referred to in point (c); (g) unless the notifying parties specify~~imated percentage of SEPs the implementations known to thate the global aggregate royalty is not global; (h) royalty referred to in paragraph (1) is valid. 3. paragraph (1) shall be made at the latest 120 days after: (a) the standard development organisation for implementations known to the SEP holders referred to in paragraph (2), point (c); or (b) a new implementation of the standard becomes known to them. 4. The competence centre shall publish in the database the information provided under paragraph (2)., any period for which the aggregate The notification referred to in the publication of a standard by

2023/10/31
Committee: JURI

Catharina RINZEMA, Bart GROOTHUIS, Annie SCHREIJER-PIERIK, Antonius MANDERS

Proposal for a regulation
Article 16

Revision of aggregate royalty 1. aggregate royalty, the SEP holders shall notify the competence centre about the revised aggregate royalty and the reasons for the revision. 2. publish in the database the initial aggregate royalty, the revised aggregate royalty and the reasons for the revision in the register.Article 16 deleted In case of revision of the The competence centre shall

2023/10/31
Committee: JURI

Catharina RINZEMA, Bart GROOTHUIS, Annie SCHREIJER-PIERIK, Antonius MANDERS

Proposal for a regulation
Article 17

Process for facilitating agreements on 1. more Member States representing at least 20 % of all SEPs of a standard may request the competence centre to appoint a conciliator from the roster of conciliators to mediate the discussions for a joint submission of an aggregate royalty. 2. later than 90 days following the publication of the standard or no later than 120 days following the first sale of new implementation on the Union market for implementations not known at the time of publication of the standard. 3. following information: (a) standard; (b) technical specification or the date of the firArticle 17 deleted aggregate royalty determinations Holders of SEPs in force in one or Such a request shal~~e of new implementation on the Union market; (c) the implementations known to the SEP holders referred to in paragraph (1); (d) the names and contact details of the SEP holders support~~l be made no The request shall containg the request; (e) the estimated percentage of SEPs they own individually and collectively from all potential SEPs claimed for the standard. 4. the SEP holders referred to in paragraph (3), point (d) and request them to express their interest in participating in the process and to provide their estimated percentage of SEPs from all SEPs for the standard. 5. The competence centre shall appoint a conciliator from the roster of conciliators and inform all SEP holders that expressed interest to participate in the process. 6. conciliator confidential information shall provide a non-confidential version of the information submitted in confidence in sufficient detail to permit a reasonable understanding of the substance of the information submitted in confidence. 7. Where the SEP holders fail to make a joint notification within 6 months from the appointment of the conciliator, the conciliator shall terminate the process. 8. notification, the procedure set out in Article 15(1), (2) and (4) shall apply.the commercial name of the the date of publication of the latest The competence centre shall notify SEP holders that submit to the If the contributors agree on a joint

2023/10/31
Committee: JURI

Catharina RINZEMA, Bart GROOTHUIS, Annie SCHREIJER-PIERIK, Antonius MANDERS

Proposal for a regulation
Article 18

~~[...]~~deleted

2023/10/31
Committee: JURI

Catharina RINZEMA, Bart GROOTHUIS

Proposal for a regulation
Article 19 – paragraph 1 – introductory part

1. The competence centre shall create an entry in the register for a standard for which FRAND commitments have been made within 60 days ~~from the earliest of the following events:~~

2023/10/31
Committee: JURI

Catharina RINZEMA, Bart GROOTHUIS, Annie SCHREIJER-PIERIK, Antonius MANDERS

Proposal for a regulation
Article 19 – paragraph 1 – point b

~~(b) publication by the competence centre of an aggregate royalty and related information pursuant to Article 15(4) and Article 18(11).~~deleted

2023/10/31
Committee: JURI

Catharina RINZEMA, Bart GROOTHUIS

Proposal for a regulation
Article 19 – paragraph 2

2. The competence centre shall publish a notice on the EUIPO website informing stakeholders that an entry in the register has been made ~~and refer to the publications referred to in paragraph (1)~~. The competence centre shall notify known SEP holders individually by electronic means and the relevant standard development organisation of the notice in this paragraph.

2023/10/31
Committee: JURI

Catharina RINZEMA, Bart GROOTHUIS

Proposal for a regulation
Article 22 – paragraph 1

1. ~~A sample of~~ SEP registrations ~~shall~~may be checked annually for completeness and correctness, if the SEP holder agrees to do so.

2023/10/31
Committee: JURI

Catharina RINZEMA, Bart GROOTHUIS

Proposal for a regulation
Article 22 – paragraph 3

3. Where the registration does not contain the information in accordance with Articles 4 and 5 or contains incomplete or inaccurate information, the competence centre ~~shall~~can request the SEP holder to provide the complete and accurate information within ~~the set time limit of no less than~~ 2 months.

2023/10/31
Committee: JURI

Catharina RINZEMA, Bart GROOTHUIS, Annie SCHREIJER-PIERIK, Antonius MANDERS

Proposal for a regulation
Article 22 – paragraph 4

~~4. If the SEP holder fails to provide the correct and complete information, the registration shall be suspended from the register, until such time as the incompleteness or inaccuracy is remedied.~~deleted

2023/10/31
Committee: JURI

Catharina RINZEMA, Bart GROOTHUIS, Annie SCHREIJER-PIERIK, Antonius MANDERS

Proposal for a regulation
Article 22 – paragraph 5

5. A SEP holder whose SEP has been suspended from the register pursuant to paragraph (4) and considers that the finding of the competence centre is incorrect may apply before the Boards of Appeal of the EUIPO for a decision on the matter. The application shall be made within 2 months from the suspension. Within 2 months from the application, the Boards of Appeal of the EUIPO shall either reject the application or request the competence centre to correct its finding and inform the requesting person.deleted

2023/10/31
Committee: JURI

Catharina RINZEMA, Bart GROOTHUIS, Annie SCHREIJER-PIERIK, Antonius MANDERS

Proposal for a regulation
Article 23 – paragraph 5

5. If the SEP holder fails to correct the entry in the register or the information submitted for the database within the given time limit, the registration shall be suspended from the register, until such time as the incompleteness or inaccuracy is remedied.deleted

2023/10/31
Committee: JURI

Catharina RINZEMA, Bart GROOTHUIS, Annie SCHREIJER-PIERIK, Antonius MANDERS

Proposal for a regulation
Article 23 – paragraph 6

6. A SEP holder whose SEP has been suspended from the register pursuant to paragraph (5) and considers that the finding of the competence centre is incorrect may apply before the Boards of Appeal of the EUIPO for a decision on the matter. The application shall be made within 2 months from the suspension. Within two months from the application, the Boards of Appeal of the EUIPO shall either reject the application or request the competence centre to correct its finding and inform the requesting person.deleted

2023/10/31
Committee: JURI

Catharina RINZEMA, Bart GROOTHUIS, Annie SCHREIJER-PIERIK, Antonius MANDERS

Proposal for a regulation
Article 24

Effects of absence of registration or suspension of registration of SEPs 1. the time-limit set out in Article 20(3) may not be enforced in relation to the implementation of the standard for which a registration is required in a competent court of a Member State, from the time- limit set out in Article 20(3) until its registration in the register. 2. registered its SEPs within the time-limit set out in Article 20(3) shall not be entitled to receive royalties or seek damages for infringement of such SEPs in relation to the implementation of the standard for which registration is required, from the time-limit set out in Article 20(3) until its registration in the register. 3. prejudice to provisions included in contracts setting a royalty for a broad portfolio of patents, present or future, stipulating that the invalidity, non- essentiality or unenforceability of a limited number thereof shall not affect the overall amArticle 24 deleted A SEP that is not registered within A SEP holder that has not Paragraphs (1) and (2) are withount and enforceability of the royalty or other terms and conditions of the contract. 4. in case the registration of a SEP is suspended, during the suspension period pursuant to Article 22(4) or 23(5), except where the Boards of Appeal request the competence centre to correct its findings in accordance with Article 22(5) and 23(6). 5. State requested to decide on any issue related to a SEP in force in one or more Member States, shall verify whether the SEP is registered as part of the decision on admissibility of the action.Paragraphs (1) and (2) apply also A competent court of a Member

2023/10/31
Committee: JURI

Adrián VÁZQUEZ LÁZARA, Catharina RINZEMA

Proposal for a regulation
Article 25 – paragraph 1 – point d

~~(d) as a consequence of a negative result from the essentiality check pursuant to Article 31(5) and Article 33(1).~~deleted

2023/10/31
Committee: JURI

Adrián VÁZQUEZ LÁZARA, Catharina RINZEMA

Proposal for a regulation
Article 25 – paragraph 2

2. Such a request may be made at any time, except from the selection of the SEP for essentiality check pursuant to Article 29 until the publication of the result of the essentiality check in the register and database pursuant to Article 33(1).

2023/10/31
Committee: JURI

Adrián VÁZQUEZ LÁZARA, Catharina RINZEMA

Proposal for a regulation
Article 26 – paragraph 1

~~1. An evaluator shall conduct essentiality checks.~~deleted

2023/10/31
Committee: JURI

Catharina RINZEMA, Bart GROOTHUIS, Annie SCHREIJER-PIERIK, Antonius MANDERS

Proposal for a regulation
Article 26 – paragraph 2 – introductory part

2. A conciliator shall ~~conduct the following tasks:~~serve in a FRAND determination.

2023/10/31
Committee: JURI

Catharina RINZEMA, Bart GROOTHUIS, Annie SCHREIJER-PIERIK, Antonius MANDERS

Proposal for a regulation
Article 26 – paragraph 2 – point a

~~(a) mediate among parties in establishing an aggregate royalty;~~deleted

2023/10/31
Committee: JURI

Catharina RINZEMA, Bart GROOTHUIS, Annie SCHREIJER-PIERIK, Antonius MANDERS

Proposal for a regulation
Article 26 – paragraph 2 – point b

~~(b) provide a non-binding opinion on an aggregate royalty;~~deleted

2023/10/31
Committee: JURI

Catharina RINZEMA, Bart GROOTHUIS, Annie SCHREIJER-PIERIK, Antonius MANDERS

Proposal for a regulation
Article 26 – paragraph 2 – point c

~~(c) serve in a FRAND determination.~~deleted

2023/10/31
Committee: JURI

Adrián VÁZQUEZ LÁZARA, Catharina RINZEMA

Proposal for a regulation
Article 26 – paragraph 3

3. The ~~evaluators and~~ conciliators shall have the requisite expertise and experience, be unbiased and independent and adhere to a code of conduct.

2023/10/31
Committee: JURI

Adrián VÁZQUEZ LÁZARA, Catharina RINZEMA

Proposal for a regulation
Article 26 – paragraph 4

~~4. The competence centre shall appoint [10] evaluators from the roster of evaluators as peer evaluators for a period of [three] years.~~deleted

2023/10/31
Committee: JURI

Catharina RINZEMA, Bart GROOTHUIS

Proposal for a regulation
Article 26 – paragraph 5 – introductory part

5. By [OJ: please insert the date = 1824 months from entry into force of this regulation], the Commission shall by means of an implementing act adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 68(2), lay down the practical and operational arrangements concerning:

2023/10/31
Committee: JURI

Adrián VÁZQUEZ LÁZARA, Catharina RINZEMA

Proposal for a regulation
Article 26 – paragraph 5 – point a

(a) the requirements for ~~evaluators or~~ conciliators, including a Code of Conduct;

2023/10/31
Committee: JURI

Catharina RINZEMA, Bart GROOTHUIS, Annie SCHREIJER-PIERIK, Antonius MANDERS

Proposal for a regulation
Article 26 – paragraph 5 – point b

(b) the procedures pursuant to Articles ~~17, 18,~~ 31 and 32 and Title VI.

2023/10/31
Committee: JURI

Adrián VÁZQUEZ LÁZARA, Catharina RINZEMA

Proposal for a regulation
Article 27 – paragraph 3

3. Where the competence centre has not yet established roster of candidates evaluators or conciliators at the moment of the first registrations or FRAND determination, the competence centre shall invite ad hoc renowned experts who satisfy the requirements set out in the implementing act referred to in Article 26(5).deleted

2023/10/31
Committee: JURI

Adrián VÁZQUEZ LÁZARA, Catharina RINZEMA

Proposal for a regulation
Article 28

General requirement for essentiality 1. administer a system of essentiality checks, ensuring that they are conducted in an objective and impartial manner and that confidentiality of the information obtained is safeguarded 2. The essentiality check shall be conducted by an evaluator selected pursuant to Article 27. Evaluators shall conduct essentiality checks of registered SEPs for the standard for which they are registered. 3. done on more than one SEP from the respective patent family. 4. or an ongoing essentiality check shall not preclude licensing negotiations or any court or administrative procedure in relation to a registered SEP. 5. result of the essentiality check and the reasons for it in a reasoned opinion, or, in case of peer evaluation, in a final reasoned opinion, which shall not be legally binding. 6. conducted and the reasoned opinion of the evaluator or the final reasoned opinion of the peer evaluator may be used as evidence before stakeholders, patent pools, public authorities, courts or arbitrators.Article 28 deleted checks The competence centre shall Essentiality checks shall not be The lack of an essentiality check The evaluator shall summarise the The result of the essentiality check

2023/10/31
Committee: JURI

Catharina RINZEMA, Bart GROOTHUIS

Proposal for a regulation
Article 29 – paragraph 1

1. The competence centre shall select annually a sample of registered SEPs from different patent families from each SEP holder and with regard to each specific standard in the register for essentiality checks. Registered SEPs of micro and small enterprises shall be excluded from the annual sampling process. The checks shall be conducted based on a methodology that ensures the establishment of a fair and statistically valid selection that can produce sufficiently accurate results about the essentiality rate in all registered SEPs of a SEP holder with regard to each specific standard in the register. By [OJ: please insert the date = 1824 months from entry into force of this regulation] the Commission shall, by means of an implementing act, determine the detailed methodology. That implementing act shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 68(2).

2023/10/31
Committee: JURI

Catharina RINZEMA, Bart GROOTHUIS, Annie SCHREIJER-PIERIK, Antonius MANDERS

Proposal for a regulation
Article 29 – paragraph 6

6. Any implementer may voluntarily propose annually up to 100 registered SEPs from different patent families to be checked for essentiality with regard to each specific standard for which SEP registrations have been made.deleted

2023/10/31
Committee: JURI

Catharina RINZEMA, Bart GROOTHUIS, Annie SCHREIJER-PIERIK, Antonius MANDERS

Proposal for a regulation
Article 29 – paragraph 11

11. The party that requests the review of the examination of the essentiality check or peer evaluation and re- appointment of the evaluator and considers that the finding of the competence centre is incorrect may apply before the Boards of Appeal of the EUIPO for a decision on the matter. The application shall be made within 2 months from the finding of the competence centre. The Boards of Appeal of the EUIPO shall either reject the application or request the competence centre to appoint a new evaluator and inform the requesting person and, where relevant, the SEP holderdeleted

2023/10/31
Committee: JURI

Catharina RINZEMA, Bart GROOTHUIS, Annie SCHREIJER-PIERIK, Antonius MANDERS

Proposal for a regulation
Article 34 – paragraph 4

4. The obligation to initiate FRAND determination pursuant to paragraph 1 prior to the court proceedings is without prejudice to the possibility for either party to request, pending the FRAND determination, the competent court of a Member State to issue a provisional injunction of a financial nature against the alleged infringer. The provisional injunction shall exclude the seizure of property of the alleged infringer and the seizure or delivery up of the products suspected of infringing a SEP. Where national law provides that the provisional injunction of a financial nature can only be requested where a case is pending on the merits, either party may bring a case on the merits before the competent court of a Member State for that purpose. However, the parties shall request the competent court of a Member State to suspend the proceedings on the merits for the duration of the FRAND determination. In deciding whether to grant the provisional injunction, the competent court of a Member States shall consider that a procedure for FRAND determination is ongoing.deleted

2023/10/31
Committee: JURI

Catharina RINZEMA, Bart GROOTHUIS, Annie SCHREIJER-PIERIK, Antonius MANDERS

Proposal for a regulation
Article 34 – paragraph 5

~~5. Once the FRAND determination is terminated, the whole range of measures, including provisional, precautionary and corrective measures, shall be available to parties.~~deleted

2023/10/31
Committee: JURI

Catharina RINZEMA, Bart GROOTHUIS, Annie SCHREIJER-PIERIK, Antonius MANDERS

Proposal for a regulation
Article 37 – paragraph 2

~~2. The period for the time barring of claims before a competent court of a Member State shall be suspended for the duration of the FRAND determination.~~deleted

2023/10/31
Committee: JURI

Catharina RINZEMA, Bart GROOTHUIS

Proposal for a regulation
Article 38 – paragraph 2

2. The responding party shall notify the competence centre within 15 days from the receipt of the notification of the request for FRAND determination from the competence centre in accordance with paragraph (1). The response shall indicate whether the responding party agrees to the FRAND determination ~~and whether it commits to comply with its outcome~~.

2023/10/31
Committee: JURI

Catharina RINZEMA, Bart GROOTHUIS, Annie SCHREIJER-PIERIK, Antonius MANDERS

Proposal for a regulation
Article 38 – paragraph 3 – introductory part

3. Where the responding party does not reply within the time limit laid down in paragraph (2) or informs the competence centre of its decision not to participate in the FRAND determination, ~~or not to commit to comply with the outcome, the following shall apply:~~the competence centre shall terminate the FRAND determination.

2023/10/31
Committee: JURI

Catharina RINZEMA, Bart GROOTHUIS, Annie SCHREIJER-PIERIK, Antonius MANDERS

Proposal for a regulation
Article 38 – paragraph 3 – point a

(a) the competence centre shall notify the requesting party thereof and invite it to indicate within seven days whether it requests the continuation of the FRAND determination and whether it commits to comply with the outcome of the FRAND determination;deleted

2023/10/31
Committee: JURI

Catharina RINZEMA, Bart GROOTHUIS, Annie SCHREIJER-PIERIK, Antonius MANDERS

Proposal for a regulation
Article 38 – paragraph 3 – point b

(b) where the requesting party requests the continuation of the FRAND determination and commits to its outcome, the FRAND determination shall continue, but Article 34(1) shall not apply to the court proceedings for the requesting party in relation to the same subject matter.deleted

2023/10/31
Committee: JURI

Catharina RINZEMA, Bart GROOTHUIS, Annie SCHREIJER-PIERIK, Antonius MANDERS

Proposal for a regulation
Article 38 – paragraph 3 – point c

(c) where the requesting party fails to request, within the time limit referred to in subparagraph (a), the continuation of the FRAND determination, the competence centre shall terminate the FRAND determination.deleted

2023/10/31
Committee: JURI

Catharina RINZEMA, Bart GROOTHUIS

Proposal for a regulation
Article 38 – paragraph 4 – introductory part

4. Where the responding party agrees to the FRAND determination ~~and commits to comply with its outcome pursuant to paragraph (2), including where~~, such commitment ishall contin~~gent upon the commitment of the requesting party to comply with the outcome of the FRAND determination, the following shall apply:~~ue and, upon mutual agreement, the outcome may be binding for both parties.

2023/10/31
Committee: JURI

Catharina RINZEMA, Bart GROOTHUIS, Annie SCHREIJER-PIERIK, Antonius MANDERS

Proposal for a regulation
Article 38 – paragraph 4 – point a

(a) the competence centre shall notify the requesting party thereof and request to inform the competence centre within seven days whether it also commits to comply with the outcome of the FRAND determination. In case of acceptance of the commitment by the requesting party, the FRAND determination shall continue and the outcome shall be binding for both parties;deleted

2023/10/31
Committee: JURI

Catharina RINZEMA, Bart GROOTHUIS, Annie SCHREIJER-PIERIK, Antonius MANDERS

Proposal for a regulation
Article 38 – paragraph 4 – point b

(b) where the requesting party does not reply within the time limit referred to in subparagraph (a) or informs the competence centre of its decision not to commit to comply with outcome of the FRAND determination, the competence centre shall notify the responding party and invite it to indicate within seven days whether it requests the continuation of the FRAND determination.deleted

2023/10/31
Committee: JURI

Catharina RINZEMA, Bart GROOTHUIS, Annie SCHREIJER-PIERIK, Antonius MANDERS

Proposal for a regulation
Article 38 – paragraph 4 – point c

(c) where the responding party requests the continuation of the FRAND determination, the FRAND determination shall continue, but Article 34(1) shall not apply to the court proceedings for by the responding party in relation to the same subject matter;deleted

2023/10/31
Committee: JURI

Catharina RINZEMA, Bart GROOTHUIS, Annie SCHREIJER-PIERIK, Antonius MANDERS

Proposal for a regulation
Article 38 – paragraph 4 – point d

(d) where the responding party fails to request, within the time-limit referred to in subparagraph (b), the continuation of the FRAND determination, the competence centre shall terminate the FRAND determination.deleted

2023/10/31
Committee: JURI

Catharina RINZEMA, Bart GROOTHUIS, Annie SCHREIJER-PIERIK, Antonius MANDERS

Proposal for a regulation
Article 38 – paragraph 5

5. Where either party commits to comply with the outcome of the FRAND determination, while the other party fails to do so within the applicable time limits, the competence centre shall adopt a notice of commitment to the FRAND determination and notify the parties within 5 days from the expiry of the time- limit to provide the commitment. The notice of commitment shall include the names of the parties, the subject-matter of the FRAND determination, a summary of the procedure and information on the commitment provided or on the failure to provide commitment for each party.deleted

2023/10/31
Committee: JURI

Catharina RINZEMA, Bart GROOTHUIS, Annie SCHREIJER-PIERIK, Antonius MANDERS

Proposal for a regulation
Article 38 – paragraph 6

6. The FRAND determination shall concern a global SEP licence, unless otherwise specified by the parties in case both parties agree to the FRAND determination or by the party that requested the continuation of the FRAND determination. SMEs that are parties to the FRAND determination may request to limit the territorial scope of the FRAND determination.deleted

2023/10/31
Committee: JURI

Catharina RINZEMA, Bart GROOTHUIS

Proposal for a regulation
Article 39 – paragraph 1

1. Following the reply to the FRAND determination by the responding party in accordance with Article 38(2), ~~or the request to continue in accordance with Article 38(5),~~ the competence centre shall propose at least 3 candidates for the FRAND determination from the roster of conciliators referred to Article 27(2). The parties ~~or party~~ shall select one of the proposed candidates as a conciliator for the FRAND determination.

2023/10/31
Committee: JURI

Catharina RINZEMA, Bart GROOTHUIS

Proposal for a regulation
Article 42 – paragraph 2

2. He/she shall communicate to the parties ~~or the party requesting~~ the continuation of the FRAND determination the conduct as well as the schedule of procedure.

2023/10/31
Committee: JURI

Catharina RINZEMA, Bart GROOTHUIS

Proposal for a regulation
Article 45 – paragraph 2

2. The conciliator may invite the parties ~~or the party requesting the continuation of the FRAND determination~~ to meet with him/her or may communicate with him/her orally or in writing.

2023/10/31
Committee: JURI

Catharina RINZEMA, Bart GROOTHUIS

Proposal for a regulation
Article 45 – paragraph 3

3. The parties ~~or the party requesting 3. the continuation of the FRAND determination~~ shall cooperate in good faith with the conciliator and, in particular, shall attend the meetings, comply with his/her requests to submit all relevant documents, information and explanations as well as use the means at their disposal to enable the conciliator to hear witnesses and experts whom the conciliator might call.

2023/10/31
Committee: JURI

Catharina RINZEMA, Bart GROOTHUIS, Annie SCHREIJER-PIERIK, Antonius MANDERS

Proposal for a regulation
Article 45 – paragraph 4

~~4. The responding party may join the FRAND determination at any moment before its termination.~~deleted

2023/10/31
Committee: JURI

Catharina RINZEMA, Bart GROOTHUIS

Proposal for a regulation
Article 45 – paragraph 5

5. At any stage of the procedure upon request by both parties, ~~or the party requesting the continuation of the FRAND determination, as applicable,~~ the conciliator shall terminate the FRAND determination.

2023/10/31
Committee: JURI

Catharina RINZEMA, Bart GROOTHUIS, Annie SCHREIJER-PIERIK, Antonius MANDERS

Proposal for a regulation
Article 46 – paragraph 1 – point b

~~(b) withdraws its commitment to comply with the outcome of the FRAND determination as set out in Art. 38, or~~deleted

2023/10/31
Committee: JURI

Catharina RINZEMA, Bart GROOTHUIS, Annie SCHREIJER-PIERIK, Antonius MANDERS

Proposal for a regulation
Article 46 – paragraph 3

3. If the party requesting the continuation of the FRAND determination fails to comply with any request of the conciliator or in any other way fails to comply with a requirement relating to the FRAND determination, the conciliator shall terminate the procedure.deleted

2023/10/31
Committee: JURI

Catharina RINZEMA, Bart GROOTHUIS

Proposal for a regulation
Article 47 – paragraph 2

2. Where a parallel proceeding has been initiated before or during the FRAND determination by a party, the conciliator, or where he/she has not been appointed, the competence centre, shall terminate the FRAND determination upon the request of any ~~other~~ party.

2023/10/31
Committee: JURI

Catharina RINZEMA, Bart GROOTHUIS, Annie SCHREIJER-PIERIK, Antonius MANDERS

Proposal for a regulation
Article 50 – paragraph 3

3. When submitting suggestions for FRAND terms and conditions, the conciliator shall take into account the impact of the determination FRAND terms and conditions on the value chain and on the incentives to innovation of both the SEP holder and the stakeholders in the relevant value chain. To that end, the conciliator may ~~rely on the expert opinion referred to in Article 18 or, in case of absence of such an opinion~~ request additional information and hear experts or stakeholders.

2023/10/31
Committee: JURI

Catharina RINZEMA, Bart GROOTHUIS

Proposal for a regulation
Article 55 – paragraph 1

1. At the latest 45 days before the end of the time limit referred to in Article 37, the conciliator shall submit a reasoned proposal for a determination of FRAND terms and conditions to the parties ~~or, as applicable, the party requesting the continuation of the FRAND determination~~.

2023/10/31
Committee: JURI

Catharina RINZEMA, Bart GROOTHUIS

Proposal for a regulation
Article 55 – paragraph 2

2. Either party may submit observations to the proposal and suggest amendments to the proposal by the conciliator, who may reformulate its proposal to take into account the observations submitted by the parties and shall inform the parties ~~or the party requesting the continuation of the FRAND determination, as applicable,~~ of such reformulation.

2023/10/31
Committee: JURI

Catharina RINZEMA, Bart GROOTHUIS, Annie SCHREIJER-PIERIK, Antonius MANDERS

Proposal for a regulation
Article 56 – paragraph 1 – introductory part

1. In addition to the termination of the FRAND determination for reasons provided for Article 38(43), Article 44(3), Article 45(54), Article 46(2), point (b), ~~Article 46(3)~~ and Article 47(2), the FRAND determination shall be terminated in any of the following ways:

2023/10/31
Committee: JURI

Catharina RINZEMA, Bart GROOTHUIS

Proposal for a regulation
Article 56 – paragraph 1 – point d a (new)

(da) A binding FRAND determination agreed between parties pursuant to Article 38(4) shall terminate when the conciliator makes its final seasoned proposal under Article 55.

2023/10/31
Committee: JURI

Catharina RINZEMA, Bart GROOTHUIS, Annie SCHREIJER-PIERIK, Antonius MANDERS

Proposal for a regulation
Article 56 – paragraph 4

4. A competent court of a Member State, asked to decide on determination of FRAND terms and conditions, including in abuse of dominance cases among private parties, or SEP infringement claim concerning a SEP in force in one or more Member States subject to the FRAND determination shall not proceed with the examination of the merits of that claim, unless it has been served with a notice of termination of the FRAND determination, or, in the cases foreseen in Article 38(3)(b) and Article 38(4)(c), with a notice of commitment pursuant to Article 38(5).deleted

2023/10/31
Committee: JURI

Catharina RINZEMA, Bart GROOTHUIS, Annie SCHREIJER-PIERIK, Antonius MANDERS

Proposal for a regulation
Article 56 – paragraph 5

~~5. In the cases foreseen in Article 38(3)(b) and in Article 38(4)(c), Article 34(5) shall apply mutatis mutandis in the proceedings before a competent court of a Member State.~~deleted

2023/10/31
Committee: JURI

Catharina RINZEMA, Bart GROOTHUIS

Proposal for a regulation
Article 61 – paragraph 1

1. The competence centre shall offer training, guidance and support on SEP related matters for micro, small and medium-size enterprises free of charge. To offer these trainings, the competence centre can work together with the Commission, national patent offices and governmental schemes.

2023/10/31
Committee: JURI

Catharina RINZEMA, Bart GROOTHUIS

Proposal for a regulation
Article 61 – paragraph 1 a (new)

1a. The competence centre will maintain a list all the relevant existing patent pools for the various standards and facilitate establishing contacts between those patent pools and SMEs.

2023/10/31
Committee: JURI

Catharina RINZEMA, Bart GROOTHUIS, Annie SCHREIJER-PIERIK, Antonius MANDERS

Proposal for a regulation
Article 63 – paragraph 2 – point a

~~(a) for the conciliators facilitating agreements on aggregate royalty determinations in accordance with Article 17;~~deleted

2023/10/31
Committee: JURI

Catharina RINZEMA, Bart GROOTHUIS, Annie SCHREIJER-PIERIK, Antonius MANDERS

Proposal for a regulation
Article 63 – paragraph 2 – point b

~~(b) for the expert opinion on aggregate royalty in accordance with Article 18;~~deleted

2023/10/31
Committee: JURI

Catharina RINZEMA, Bart GROOTHUIS, Annie SCHREIJER-PIERIK, Antonius MANDERS

Proposal for a regulation
Article 63 – paragraph 3 – point a

~~(a) the fees referred to in paragraph (2), point (a) by the SEP holders that participated in the process based on their estimated percentage of SEPs from all SEPs for the standard;~~deleted

2023/10/31
Committee: JURI

Catharina RINZEMA, Bart GROOTHUIS, Annie SCHREIJER-PIERIK, Antonius MANDERS

Proposal for a regulation
Article 63 – paragraph 3 – point b

(b) the fees referred to in paragraph (2), point (b) equally by the parties that participated in the procedure of the expert opinion on aggregate royalty, unless they agree otherwise, or the panel suggests a different apportionment based on the size of the parties determined on the basis of their turnover;deleted

2023/10/31
Committee: JURI

Catharina RINZEMA, Bart GROOTHUIS

Proposal for a regulation
Article 64 – paragraph 2

2. If the amounts requested are not paid in full within 10 days after the date of the request, the competence centre may notify the defaulting party and give it the opportunity to make the required payment within [5] days. It shall submit a copy of the request to the other party, in case of ~~an aggregate royalty or~~ FRAND determination.

2023/10/31
Committee: JURI

Catharina RINZEMA, Bart GROOTHUIS, Annie SCHREIJER-PIERIK, Antonius MANDERS

Proposal for a regulation
Article 66

1. 28 months from the entry into force of this regulation] holders of SEPs essential to a standard published before the entry into force of this Regulation (‘existing standards’), for which FRAND commitments have been made, may notify the competence centre pursuant to Articles 14, 15 and 17 of any of the existing standards or parts thereof that will be determined in theArticle 66 delegated act in accordance with paragraph (4). The procedures, notification and publication requirements set out in this Regulation apply mutatis mutandis. 2. 28 months from entry into force of this regulation] implementers of a standard, standard published before the entry into force of this RegulOpening registration, for which FRAND commitments have been made may notify pursuant to Article 14(4) the competence centre of any of the existing standards or parts thereof, that will be determined in the delegated act in accordance with paragraph (4). The procedures, notification and publication requirements set out in this Regulation apply mutatis mutandis. 3. 30 months from entry into force of this regulation] a SEP holder or an implementer may request an expert opinion pursuant to Article 18 regarding SEPs essential to an existing standard or parts thereof, that will be determined in the delegated act in accordance with paragraph (4). The requirements and procedures set out in Article 18 apply mutatis mutandis. 4. internal market is severely distorted due to inefficiencies in the licensing of SEPs, the Commission shall, after an appropriate consultation process, by means of a delegated act pursuant to Article 67, determine which of the existing standards, parts thereof or relevant use cases can be notified in accordance with paragraph (1) or paragraph (2), or for which an expert opinion can be requested in accordance with paragraph (3). The delegated act shall also determine which procedures, notification and publication requirements set out in this Regulation apply to those existing standards. The delegated act shall be adopted within [OJ: please insert the date = 18 months from entry into force of this regulation]. 5. This article shall apply without prejudice to any acts concluded and rights acquired by [OJ: please insert the date = 28 months from entry into force of this regulation].an existing standard Until [OJ: please insert the date = Until [OJ: please insert the date = Until [OJ: please insert the date = Where the functioning of the

2023/10/31
Committee: JURI

Catharina RINZEMA, Bart GROOTHUIS

Proposal for a regulation
Article 67 – paragraph 2

2. The power to adopt a delegated act referred to in Articles 1(4)2, 4(5) and ~~66(4~~4(5) shall be conferred on the Commission for an indeterminate period of time from the date of entry into force of this Regulation.

2023/10/31
Committee: JURI

Catharina RINZEMA, Bart GROOTHUIS

Proposal for a regulation
Article 67 – paragraph 3

3. The delegation of power referred to in Articles 1(4)2, 4(5) and ~~66(4~~4(5) may be revoked at any time by the European Parliament or by the Council. A decision to revoke shall put an end to the delegation of the power specified in that decision. It shall take effect the day following the publication of the decision in the Official Journal of the European Union or at a later date specified therein. It shall not affect the validity of any delegated acts already in force.

2023/10/31
Committee: JURI

Catharina RINZEMA, Bart GROOTHUIS

Proposal for a regulation
Article 67 – paragraph 6

6. A delegated act adopted pursuant to Articles 1(4)2, 4(5) and ~~66(4~~4(5) shall enter into force only if no objection has been expressed either by the European Parliament or the Council within a period of 2 months of notification of that act to the European Parliament and the Council or if, before the expiry of that period, the European Parliament and the Council have both informed the Commission that they will not object. That period shall be extended by 2 months at the initiative of the European Parliament or of the Council.

2023/10/31
Committee: JURI