BETA

Activities of Emmanuel MAUREL related to 2023/0133(COD)

Plenary speeches (1)

2024/02/27
Dossiers: 2023/0133(COD)

Shadow reports (1)

2024/01/30
Committee: JURI
Dossiers: 2023/0133(COD)
Documents: PDF(682 KB) DOC(312 KB)
Authors: [{'name': 'Marion WALSMANN', 'mepid': 197429}]

Amendments (79)

Emmanuel MAUREL

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 4

(4) There are well established commercial relationships and licensing practices for certain use cases of standards, such as the standards for wireless communications, with iterations over multiple generations leading to considerable mutual dependency and significant value visibly accruing to both SEP holders and implementers. There are other, typically more novel use cases – sometimes of the same standards or subsets thereof - with less mature markets, more diffuse and less consolidated implementer communities, for which unpredictability of royalty and other licensing conditions and the prospect of complex patent assessments and valuations and related litigation weigh more heavily on the incentives to deploy standardised technologies in innovative products. Therefore, in order to ensure a proportionate and well targeted response, certain procedures under this Regulation, namely the aggregate royalty determination and the compulsory FRAND determination prior to litigation, should not be applied to identified use cases of certain standards or parts thereof for which there is sufficient evidence that SEP licensing negotiations on FRAND terms do not give rise to significant difficulties or inefficiencies.deleted

2023/10/31
Committee: JURI

Emmanuel MAUREL

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 5

(5) Whereas transparency in SEP licensing should stimulate a balanced investment environment, along entire Single Market value chains, in particular for emerging technology use cases underpinning Union objectives of green, digital and resilient growth, the Regulation should also apply to standards or parts thereof, published before its entry into force where inefficiencies in the licensing of the relevant SEPs severely distort the functioning of the internal market. This is particularly relevant for market failures hindering investment in the Single Market, the roll-out of innovative technologies or the development of nascent technologies and emerging use cases. Therefore, taking into account those criteria, the Commission should determine by a delegated act the standards or parts thereof that have been published before the entry into force of this Regulation and the relevant use cases, for which SEPs can be registered.

2023/10/31
Committee: JURI

Emmanuel MAUREL

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 19

(19) In order to ensure transparency of about SEPs, it is appropriate to require from SEP holders to register their patents which are essential to the standard for which the registration is open. SEP holders should register their SEPs within 6 months following the opening of the registration by the competence centre or the grant of the relevant SEPs, whichever is first. In case of timely registration, SEPs holders should be able to collect royalties and claim damages for uses and infringements that happened before the registration, provided that the amount thereof has been established in accordance with the FRAND determination rules set out in this Regulation.

2023/10/31
Committee: JURI

Emmanuel MAUREL

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 39

(39) If a party fails to engage in the FRAND determination after the conciliator has been appointed~~, the other party may request the termination or may request that the conciliator~~ and has issuesd a ~~recommendation for a FRAND determination on the basis of the information it was able to assess~~binding opinion, the other party may refer the dispute to the EUIPO.

2023/10/31
Committee: JURI

Emmanuel MAUREL

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 41

(41) At the conclusion of the procedure, the conciliator should make a proposal recommending FRAND terms and conditions. Either party should have the option to accept or reject the proposal. If the parties do not settle and/or do not accept its proposal, the conciliator should draft a report of the FRAND determination. The report would have a confidential and a non-confidential version. The non-confidential version of the report should contain the proposal for FRAND terms and conditions and the methodology used and should be provided to the competence centre for publication in order to inform any subsequentsetting out binding FRAND determination between the parties and other stakeholders involved in similar negotiations. The report would thus have a dual purpose to encourage the parties to settle and to provide transparency as to the process and the recommended FRAND terms in cases of disagreements and conditions.

2023/10/31
Committee: JURI

Emmanuel MAUREL

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 48

(48) In order to ensure uniform conditions for the implementation of the relevant provisions of this Regulation, implementing powers should be conferred on the Commission to adopt the detailed requirements for the selection of evaluators and conciliators, as well as adopt the rules of procedure and Code of Conduct for evaluators and conciliators. The Commission should also adopt the technical rules for the selection of a sample of SEPs for essentiality checks and the methodology for the conduct of such essentiality checks by evaluators and peer evaluators. The Commission should also determine any administrative fees for its services in relation to the tasks under this Regulation and fees for the services evaluators, experts and conciliators, derogations thereof and payment methods and adapt them as necessary. ~~The Commission should also determine the standards or parts thereof that have been published before the entry into force of this Regulation, for which SEPs can be registered.~~ Those powers should be exercised in accordance with Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council45 . __________________ 45 Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down the rules and general principles concerning mechanisms for control by the Member States of the Commission’s exercise of implementing powers (OJ L 55, 28.2.2011, p. 13.)

2023/10/31
Committee: JURI

Emmanuel MAUREL

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

Emmanuel MAUREL

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

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

2023/10/31
Committee: JURI

Emmanuel MAUREL

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

Emmanuel MAUREL

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, 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.deleted

2023/10/31
Committee: JURI

Emmanuel MAUREL

Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 5

5. This Regulation shall apply to ~~holders of~~all SEPs in force in one or more Member States.

2023/10/31
Committee: JURI

Emmanuel MAUREL

Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 6

6) ‘SEP holder’ means an owner of a SEP or a person holding an exclusive licence for a SEP ~~in one of more Member States~~;

2023/10/31
Committee: JURI

Emmanuel MAUREL

Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 10

10) ‘aggregate royalty’ means the maximum amount of royalty for all patents essential to a standard used in a product, process, service or system;

2023/10/31
Committee: JURI

Emmanuel MAUREL

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 ~~report~~opinions of the FRAND determinations;

2023/10/31
Committee: JURI

Emmanuel MAUREL

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

j) raestabliseh a~~wareness about SEP licensing, including SEP~~ dedicated working group on conditions for licensing SEPs in the value chain.

2023/10/31
Committee: JURI

Emmanuel MAUREL

Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 7

7. The competence centre shall keep the register easily accessible for public inspection. The competence centre shall provide a copy translated into the official languages of the European Union if necessary. The data shall be considered to be of public interest and may be accessed by any third party free of charge.

2023/10/31
Committee: JURI

Emmanuel MAUREL

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

Emmanuel MAUREL

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

h) binding expert opinions referred to in Article 18;

2023/10/31
Committee: JURI

Emmanuel MAUREL

Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 3

3. Access to the information pursuant to paragraph (2), points (f), (h), (i), (j) and (k) may be subject to the payment of a ~~fee~~reasonable fee, as set out in Article 63.

2023/10/31
Committee: JURI

Emmanuel MAUREL

Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 5

5. Upon request, the competence centre shall issue registration certificates or certified copies of the data and documents in the register or the database. The registration certificates and certified copies may be subject to the payment of a reasonable fee.

2023/10/31
Committee: JURI

Emmanuel MAUREL

Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 1 – point a

a) information as regards the products, a) processes, services or systems in which the subject-matter of the SEP may be incorporated or to which it is intended to be applied, for all existing or potential implementations of a standard, to the extent such information is known to the SEP holder. in this regard, components or modules which may be incorporated into other products, processes, services or systems constitute in themselves ‘products, processes, services or systems’ in so far as the subject matter of the SEP may be incorporated into or intended to be applied to those components or modules.

2023/10/31
Committee: JURI

Emmanuel MAUREL

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 a pool~~, identifying the SEP registration number, the identity of the patent pool and its administrator, and the evaluator.

2023/10/31
Committee: JURI

Emmanuel MAUREL

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

g) list of products, services and processes that may be licensed through the patent pool or the entity; in this regard, components or modules which may be incorporated into other products, processes, services or systems constitute in themselves ‘products, processes, services or systems’ in so far as the subject matter of the SEP may be incorporated into or intended to be applied to those components or modules.

2023/10/31
Committee: JURI

Emmanuel MAUREL

Proposal for a regulation
Article 13 – paragraph 1

1. The competence centre shall store in the database all the data provided by stakeholders, as well as binding and justified opinions and as well as reports of evaluators and conciliators.

2023/10/31
Committee: JURI

Emmanuel MAUREL

Proposal for a regulation
Article 14 – paragraph 2

2. Such notification shall be made (a) within 90 days of the entry into force of this Regulation for standards already adopted, (b) within 30 days of the publication of the latest technical specification adopted after the entry into force of this Regulation.

2023/10/31
Committee: JURI

Emmanuel MAUREL

Proposal for a regulation
Article 14 – paragraph 3

3. In the absence of the notification under paragraph (1), any holder of a SEP in force in one or more Member State shall notify individually: (a) the standards already adopted within a maximum period of 150 days from the entry into force of this Regulation; (b) within a maximum period of 90 day, no later than 90 days from the publication of the latest technical specification, to the competence centre the information referred to in paragraph (1).

2023/10/31
Committee: JURI

Emmanuel MAUREL

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. The notification made in accordance with paragraph (1) shall contain the information on the following: a) commercial name of the standard; b) that define the standard; c) holders 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 for the standard; f) the implementations known to the SEP holders referred to in point (c); g) the global aggregate royalty, unless the notifying parties specify that the aggregate royalty is not global; h) royalty referred to in paragraph (1) is valid. 3. The notification referred to in 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 implementArticle 15 deleted competence centre Holders of SEPs in force in one or the list of technical specifications the names of the SEP the estimated percentage the SEP the estimated percentage of SEPs any period for which the aggregate the publication of ~~the~~a standard b~~ecomes known to them. 4. The competence centre shall publish in the database the information provided under paragraph (2).~~y

2023/10/31
Committee: JURI

Emmanuel MAUREL

Proposal for a regulation
Article 16

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 Revision of aggregate royalty In case of revision of the The competence centre shall

2023/10/31
Committee: JURI

Emmanuel MAUREL

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. The request shall contain the following information: a) commercial name of the standard; b) technical specification or the date of the first sale 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 supporting 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. 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.Article 17 deleted aggregate royalty determinations Holders of SEPs in force in one or Such a request shall be made no the date of publication of the latest The competence centre shall notify SEP holders that submit to the Where the SEP holders fail to If the contributors agree on a joint

2023/10/31
Committee: JURI

Emmanuel MAUREL

Proposal for a regulation
Article 18 – title

~~Non-b~~Binding expert opinion on aggregate royalty

2023/10/31
Committee: JURI

Emmanuel MAUREL

Proposal for a regulation
Article 18 – paragraph 1

1. A SEP holder or an implementer may request the competence centre for a ~~non-~~binding expert opinion on a global aggregate royalty.

2023/10/31
Committee: JURI

Emmanuel MAUREL

Proposal for a regulation
Article 18 – paragraph 6

6. If the requests for participation include SEP holders representing collectively ~~at least~~ an estimated 210% of all SEPs for the standard, and ~~implementers holding collectively at least 10% relevant market share in the Union or at least 10 SME~~at least 10 implementers, the competence centre shall appoint a panel of three conciliators selected from the roster of conciliators with the appropriate background from the relevant field of technology.

2023/10/31
Committee: JURI

Emmanuel MAUREL

Proposal for a regulation
Article 18 – paragraph 8 – introductory part

8. Following the appointment, the panel shall request the participating ~~SEP~~ stakeholders to, within one month:

2023/10/31
Committee: JURI

Emmanuel MAUREL

Proposal for a regulation
Article 18 – paragraph 9 – point a

(a) to suspend the procedure for ~~the expert opinion on aggregate royalty for~~ an initial period of no longer than 6 months, which can be further extended on the basis of a duly justified request by one of the participating SEP holders, or

2023/10/31
Committee: JURI

Emmanuel MAUREL

Proposal for a regulation
Article 18 – paragraph 9 – point a

(a) to suspend the procedure for the expert opinion on aggregate royalty for an initial period of no longer than 6 months, which can be further extended on the basis of a duly justified request by one of the participating ~~SEP~~ stakeholders, or

2023/10/31
Committee: JURI

Emmanuel MAUREL

Proposal for a regulation
Article 18 – paragraph 9 – point b

(b) to provide the binding expert opinion.

2023/10/31
Committee: JURI

Emmanuel MAUREL

Proposal for a regulation
Article 18 – paragraph 10

10. The panel shall provide the binding expert opinion within 8 months of the end of the suspension period pursuant to paragraph 8(a) or of the decision referred to in paragraph 8(b). The binding opinion shall be supported by at least two of the three conciliators.

2023/10/31
Committee: JURI

Emmanuel MAUREL

Proposal for a regulation
Article 18 – paragraph 11

11. The binding expert opinion shall include a summary of the information provided in the request, the information referred to in Article 15(2), the names of the conciliators, the procedure, the reasons for the opinion on the aggregate royalty and the underlying methodology. The reasons for any divergent views shall be specified in an annex to the expert opinion.

2023/10/31
Committee: JURI

Emmanuel MAUREL

Proposal for a regulation
Article 18 – paragraph 12

12. The binding expert opinion shall include an analysis of the value chain concerned and the potential impact of the aggregate royalty on the innovation incentives ~~of both SEP holders and~~, in particular for stakeholders in the value chain where licensing is to take place.

2023/10/31
Committee: JURI

Emmanuel MAUREL

Proposal for a regulation
Article 18 – paragraph 13

13. The competence centre shall publish the binding expert opinion and notify the participants of that publication.

2023/10/31
Committee: JURI

Emmanuel MAUREL

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. The registration shall be removed if the SEP holder fails to react within 12 months of the date of suspension from the register.

2023/10/31
Committee: JURI

Emmanuel MAUREL

Proposal for a regulation
Article 23 – paragraph 1

1. A SEP holder may request a correction of its SEP registration or of the information contained in the database by filing an appropriate request to the competence centre~~, except as provided for in paragraph (2)~~ when the SEP is subject to an examination of essentiality in accordance with Article 31, until the publication of the result of that examination of essentiality.

2023/10/31
Committee: JURI

Emmanuel MAUREL

Proposal for a regulation
Article 23 – paragraph 4 – point c a (new)

(ca) (d): a negative result of an examination of essentiality in accordance with Articles 32(5) and 33(1)

2023/10/31
Committee: JURI

Emmanuel MAUREL

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. The registration shall be removed if the SEP holder takes no action following the suspension of the registration.

2023/10/31
Committee: JURI

Emmanuel MAUREL

Proposal for a regulation
Article 26 – paragraph 1

1. An evaluator shall conduct essentiality checks, the result of which shall be binding on the SEP holder.

2023/10/31
Committee: JURI

Emmanuel MAUREL

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

Emmanuel MAUREL

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

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

2023/10/31
Committee: JURI

Emmanuel MAUREL

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

5. By [OJ: please insert the date = 182 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 , lay down the practical and operational arrangements concerning:

2023/10/31
Committee: JURI

Emmanuel MAUREL

Proposal for a regulation
Article 28 – paragraph 5

5. The evaluator shall summarise the 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 on the SEP holder.

2023/10/31
Committee: JURI

Emmanuel MAUREL

Proposal for a regulation
Article 28 – paragraph 5 a (new)

5a. A SEP holder who believes that the evaluator’s final reasoned opinion is incorrect may appeal to the Boards of Appeal of the EUIPO within two months of the notification of the evaluation. The Boards of Appeal of the EUIPO shall rule on the essentiality of the SEP and notify the SEP holder of its binding decision.

2023/10/31
Committee: JURI

Emmanuel MAUREL

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 = 182 months from entry into force of this regulation] the Commission shall, by means of an implementing act, determine the detailed methodology. The implementing act shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 68(2).

2023/10/31
Committee: JURI

Emmanuel MAUREL

Proposal for a regulation
Article 34 – paragraph 4

4. The o~~bligation to initiate~~pening of a 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 provisionalrocedure in accordance with paragraph 1 shall prevent the SEP holder from requesting an injunction, provisional or final, in connection with the SEPs concerned. This shall apply to injunctions 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 merias well as injunctions that would impact the marketing of the implementer’s products for ~~the duration of the FRAND determination. In deciding whether to grant the provisional injunction, the competent co~~involve their recall or the seizurte o~~f a Member States shall consider that a procedure for FRAND determination is ongoing~~r delivery of the implementer’s goods.

2023/10/31
Committee: JURI

Emmanuel MAUREL

Proposal for a regulation
Article 36 – paragraph 2 – introductory part

2. Where the request to initiate a FRAND determination is made by a SEP holder, it shall contain, in addition to the information listed in paragraph (1), ~~it shall contain~~ the following information:

2023/10/31
Committee: JURI

Emmanuel MAUREL

Proposal for a regulation
Article 40 – title

Appointment of conciliators

2023/10/31
Committee: JURI

Emmanuel MAUREL

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. If the other party chooses to pursue the proceeding, the resulting FRAND determination shall be binding throughout the EU, notwithstanding parallel proceedings in the third country.

2023/10/31
Committee: JURI

Emmanuel MAUREL

Proposal for a regulation
Article 50 – paragraph 2

2. If the requesting party has submitted a written proposal for FRAND terms and conditions in its written submission, the responding party shall be given opportunity to comment on it and/or submit a written counter-proposal in its reply within 30 days of the date of the written proposal of the requesting party.

2023/10/31
Committee: JURI

Emmanuel MAUREL

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 binding 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

Emmanuel MAUREL

Proposal for a regulation
Article 55 – paragraph 2

2. Either party may submit observations to the proposal and suggest amendments ~~to the proposal~~within a deadline set 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

Emmanuel MAUREL

Proposal for a regulation
Article 55 – paragraph 2 a (new)

2a. The conciliator shall promptly notify the parties that its proposal, after reformulation where applicable, is now final and constitutes a binding decision for the parties as regards the FRAND terms and conditions to be applied.

2023/10/31
Committee: JURI

Emmanuel MAUREL

Proposal for a regulation
Article 55 – paragraph 2 b (new)

2b. The SEP holders or an implementer who consider the binding determination by the conciliator of the FRAND terms and conditions to be incorrect may appeal to the Boards of Appeal of the EUIPO. The application must be made within two months of the publication of the conciliator’s decision. The Boards of Appeal of the EUIPO shall determine the FRAND terms and conditions in a reasoned decision, which shall be binding on the SEP holders and the implementer. The decision shall be notified to the SEP holders and the implementer.

2023/10/31
Committee: JURI

Emmanuel MAUREL

Proposal for a regulation
Article 56 – paragraph 1 – point c

~~c) a written declaration is made by a party not to accept the reasoned proposal of a determination of FRAND terms and conditions by the conciliator referred to in Article 55;~~deleted

2023/10/31
Committee: JURI

Emmanuel MAUREL

Proposal for a regulation
Article 56 – paragraph 1 – point d

d~~) a party has not submitted a reply to the reasoned proposal of a determination of FRAND terms and conditions by the conciliator referred to in Article 55.~~eleted

2023/10/31
Committee: JURI

Emmanuel MAUREL

Proposal for a regulation
Article 57 – title

~~Rapport~~Publication and use of the FRAND determination

2023/10/31
Committee: JURI

Emmanuel MAUREL

Proposal for a regulation
Article 57 – paragraph 1

~~1. The conciliator shall provide the parties with a written report following the termination of the FRAND determination in cases listed in Article 56(1), point (c) and Article 56(1), point (d).~~deleted

2023/10/31
Committee: JURI

Emmanuel MAUREL

Proposal for a regulation
Article 57 – paragraph 2 – introductory part

~~2. The report shall include the following:~~deleted

2023/10/31
Committee: JURI

Emmanuel MAUREL

Proposal for a regulation
Article 57 – paragraph 2 – point a

~~a) the names of the parties;~~deleted

2023/10/31
Committee: JURI

Emmanuel MAUREL

Proposal for a regulation
Article 57 – paragraph 2 – point b

~~b) a confidential assessment of the FRAND determination;~~deleted

2023/10/31
Committee: JURI

Emmanuel MAUREL

Proposal for a regulation
Article 57 – paragraph 2 – point c

~~c) confidential summary of the main issues of disagreement;~~deleted

2023/10/31
Committee: JURI

Emmanuel MAUREL

Proposal for a regulation
Article 57 – paragraph 2 – point d

d~~) a non-confidential methodology and the assessment of the determination of FRAND terms and conditions by the conciliator.~~eleted

2023/10/31
Committee: JURI

Emmanuel MAUREL

Proposal for a regulation
Article 57 – paragraph 3

3. The ~~confidential report~~final proposal of the conciliator determining the FRAND terms and conditions and, where applicable, the decision of the Boards of Appeal shall be a~~vaila~~ccessible only to the parties and to the competence centre. The competence centre shall publish ~~the~~ non-confidential ~~report~~versions in the database.

2023/10/31
Committee: JURI

Emmanuel MAUREL

Proposal for a regulation
Article 57 – paragraph 4

4. Either party to the FRAND determination may file the ~~report~~final proposal of the conciliator determining the FRAND terms and conditions and, where applicable, the decision of the Boards of Appeal in any proceedings before a competent court of a Member State against the other party to the FRAND determination, notwithstanding any procedural bar.

2023/10/31
Committee: JURI

Emmanuel MAUREL

Proposal for a regulation
Article 58 – paragraph 2

2. Notwithstanding paragraph (1), the competence centre may include information concerning the FRAND determination in any aggregate statistical data that it publishes concerning its activities~~, provided that such information does not allow identification the parties or the particular circumstances of the dispute to be identified~~.

2023/10/31
Committee: JURI

Emmanuel MAUREL

Proposal for a regulation
Article 63 – paragraph 5

5. By [OJ: please insert the date = 182 months from entry into force of this Regulation], the Commission shall adopt an implementing act determining the amounts of the fees referred to in Article 63, the arrangement concerning the payment methods related to the rules set out in paragraph (3) and paragraph (4) of this Article. The implementing act shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 68(2).

2023/10/31
Committee: JURI

Emmanuel MAUREL

Proposal for a regulation
Article 66 – paragraph 1

1. Until [OJ: please insert the date = 284 months from the entry into force of this regulation] ~~implementers of a standard,~~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~~(4) the competence centre~~, 15 and 17 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.

2023/10/31
Committee: JURI

Emmanuel MAUREL

Proposal for a regulation
Article 66 – paragraph 2

2. Until [OJ: please insert the date = 284 months from entry into force of this regulation] implementers of a standard, standard published before the entry into force of this Regulation, 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.

2023/10/31
Committee: JURI

Emmanuel MAUREL

Proposal for a regulation
Article 66 – paragraph 3

3. Until [OJ: please insert the date = 3024 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.

2023/10/31
Committee: JURI

Emmanuel MAUREL

Proposal for a regulation
Article 66 – paragraph 4

4. Where the functioning of the 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].deleted

2023/10/31
Committee: JURI

Emmanuel MAUREL

Proposal for a regulation
Article 70 – paragraph 2

2. By [OJ: please insert the date = 85 years from entry into force of this regulation], and every five years thereafter, the Commission shall evaluate the implementation of this Regulation. The evaluation shall assess the operation of this Regulation, in particular the impact, effectiveness and efficiency of the competence centre and its working methods.

2023/10/31
Committee: JURI

Emmanuel MAUREL

Proposal for a regulation
Article 72 – paragraph 2

2. It shall apply from … [OP: please insert the date = 124 months after the date of entry into force of this Regulation].

2023/10/31
Committee: JURI