BETA
Home MEPs Dossiers Committees Subjects Blog About Dumps

112 Amendments of Antonius MANDERS related to 2023/0133(COD)

Amendment 131 #
Antonius MANDERS, Annie SCHREIJER-PIERIK
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 4 b (new)
(4b) There are already structures in place like the unitary patent system encompassing the Unitary Patent (UP), entrusted to the EPO, which is a legal title that provides uniform protection across all participating countries on a one-stop- shop basis, providing huge cost advantages and reducing administrative burdens. And the Unified Patent Court (UPC) which offers Member States a single and specialised patent jurisdiction.
2023/10/31
Committee: JURI
Amendment 132 #
Antonius MANDERS, Annie SCHREIJER-PIERIK
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 4 c (new)
(4c) The EPO has an existing register with a wealth of information on European patents that is tied to the UP register which contains patent holders’ commitment to license patents on FRAND terms. The owners of SEPs are thus already required to license the patents on FRAND terms.
2023/10/31
Committee: JURI
Amendment 146 #
Antonius MANDERS, Annie SCHREIJER-PIERIK
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 13
(13) The competence centre should set up and administer an electronic register and an electronic database containing detailed information on SEPs in force in one or more Member States, including essentiality check results, opinions, reports, available case-law from jurisdictions across the globe, rules relating to SEPs in third countries, and results of studies specific to SEPs. In order to raise awareness and facilitate SEP licensing for SMEs, the competence centre should offer assistance to SMEs. The setting up and administering a system for essentiality checks and processes for aggregate royalty determination and FRAND determination by the competence centre should include actions improving the system and the processes on a continuous basis, including through the use of new technologies. In line with this objective, the competence centre should establish training procedures for evaluators of essentiality and conciliators for providing opinions on aggregate royalty as well as on FRAND determination and should encourage consistency in their practices.
2023/10/31
Committee: JURI
Amendment 149 #
Antonius MANDERS, Annie SCHREIJER-PIERIK
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 14
(14) The competence centre should be the subject of Union rules on access to documents and data protection. Its tasks should be designed to increase transparency by making existing information relevant to SEPs available to all stakeholders in a centralised and systematic way. Therefore, a balance would have to be made between the free public access to basic information and the need to finance the functioning of the competence centre. In order to cover the maintenance costs a registration fee should be requested to access detailed information contained in the database, such as results of any essentiality checks and non- confidential FRAND determination reports.
2023/10/31
Committee: JURI
Amendment 168 #
Antonius MANDERS, Annie SCHREIJER-PIERIK
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 24
(24) To further ensure the quality of the register and avoid over-registration, essentiality checks should also be conducted randomly by independent evaluators selected according to objective criteria to be determined by the Commission. Only one SEP from the same patent family should be checked for essentiality.deleted
2023/10/31
Committee: JURI
Amendment 172 #
Antonius MANDERS, Annie SCHREIJER-PIERIK
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 25
(25) These essentiality checks should be conducted on a sampling from SEP portfolios to ensure that the sample is capable of producing statistically valid results. The results of the sampled essentiality checks should determine the ratio of positively checked SEPs from all the SEPs registered by each SEP holder. The essentiality rate should be updated annually.deleted
2023/10/31
Committee: JURI
Amendment 174 #
Antonius MANDERS, Annie SCHREIJER-PIERIK
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 26
(26) SEP holders or implementers may also designate annually up to 100 registered SEPs for essentiality checks. If the pre-selected SEPs are confirmed essential, the SEP holders may use this information in negotiations and as evidence in courts, without prejudicing the right of an implementer to challenge the essentiality of a registered SEP in court. The selected SEPs would have no bearing on the sampling process as the sample should be selected from all registered SEPs of each SEP holder. If a preselected SEP and a SEP selected for the sample set are the same, only one essentiality check should be done. Essentiality checks should not be repeated on SEPs from the same patent family.deleted
2023/10/31
Committee: JURI
Amendment 178 #
Antonius MANDERS, Annie SCHREIJER-PIERIK
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 27
(27) Any assessment of essentiality of SEPs conducted by an independent entity prior to the entry into force of the Regulation, for example through patent pools, as well as essentiality determinations by judicial authorities should be indicated in the register. Those SEPs should not be re-checked for essentiality after the relevant evidence supporting the information in the register is provided to the competence centre.deleted
2023/10/31
Committee: JURI
Amendment 183 #
Antonius MANDERS, Annie SCHREIJER-PIERIK
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 28
(28) The evaluators should work independently in accordance with the rules of procedure and Code of Conduct to be determined by the Commission. The SEP holder would be able request a peer evaluation before the issuance of a reasoned opinion. Unless a SEP is the subject of a peer review, there would be no further review of the essentiality check results. The results of the peer evaluation should serve to improve the essentiality check process, to identify and remedy shortcomings and improve consistency.deleted
2023/10/31
Committee: JURI
Amendment 185 #
Antonius MANDERS, Annie SCHREIJER-PIERIK
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 29
(29) The competence centre would publish the results of the essentiality checks, whether positive or negative, in the register and the database. The results of the essentiality checks would not be legally binding. Thus, any subsequent disputes with regard to essentiality would have to be addressed in the relevant court. The results from the essentiality checks, whether requested by a SEP holder or based on a sample, may, however, be used for the purpose of demonstrating essentiality of those SEPs in negotiations, in patent pools and in court.deleted
2023/10/31
Committee: JURI
Amendment 186 #
Antonius MANDERS, Annie SCHREIJER-PIERIK
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 30
(30) It is necessary to ensure that the registration and ensuing obligations provided for in this Regulation are not circumvented by removing a SEP from the register. When an evaluator finds a claimed SEP non-essential, only the SEP holder can request its removal from the register and only after the annual sampling process has been completed and the proportion of true SEPs from the sample has been established and published.deleted
2023/10/31
Committee: JURI
Amendment 195 #
Antonius MANDERS, Annie SCHREIJER-PIERIK
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 33
(33) The FRAND determination would be a mandatory step before a SEP holder would be able to initiate patent infringement proceedings or an implementer could request a determination or assessment of FRAND terms and conditions concerning a SEP before a competent court of a Member State. However, the obligation to initiate FRAND determination before the relevant court proceedings should not be required for SEPs covering those use cases of standards for which the Commission establishes that there are no significant difficulties or inefficiencies in licensing on FRAND terms.deleted
2023/10/31
Committee: JURI
Amendment 199 #
Antonius MANDERS, Annie SCHREIJER-PIERIK
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 34
(34) Each party may choose whether it wishes to engage in the procedure and commit to comply with its outcome. Where a party does not reply to the FRAND determination request or does not commit to comply with the outcome of the FRAND determination, the other party should be able to request either the termination or the unilateral continuation of the FRAND determination. Such a party should not be exposed to litigation during the time of the FRAND determination. At the same time, the FRAND determination should be an effective procedure for the parties to reach agreement before litigation or to obtain a determination to be used in further proceedings. Therefore, the party or parties that commit to complying with the outcome of the FRAND determination and duly engage in the procedure should be able to benefit from its completion.
2023/10/31
Committee: JURI
Amendment 201 #
Antonius MANDERS, Annie SCHREIJER-PIERIK
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 35
(35) The obligation to initiate FRAND determination should not be detrimental to the effective protection of the parties’ rights. In that respect, the party that commits to comply with the outcome of the FRAND determination while the other party fails to do so should be entitled to initiate proceedings before the competent national court pending the FRAND determination. In addition, either party should be able to request a provisional injunction of a financial nature before the competent court. In a situation where a FRAND commitment has been given by the relevant SEP holder, provisional injunctions of an adequate and proportionate financial nature should provide the necessary judicial protection to the SEP holder who has agreed to license its SEP on FRAND terms, while the implementer should be able to contest the level of FRAND royalties or raise a defence of lack of essentiality or of invalidity of the SEP. In those national systems that require the initiation of the proceedings on the merits of the case as a condition to request the interim measures of a financial nature, it should be possible to initiate such proceedings, but the parties should request that the case be suspended during the FRAND determination. When determining what level of the provisional injunction of financial nature is to be deemed adequate in a given case, account should be taken, inter alia, of the economic capacity of the applicant and the potential effects for the effectiveness of the measures applied for, in particular for SMEs, also in order to prevent the abusive use of such measures. It should also be clarified that once the FRAND determination is terminated, the whole range of measures, including provisional, precautionary and corrective measures, should be available to parties.deleted
2023/10/31
Committee: JURI
Amendment 220 #
Antonius MANDERS, Annie SCHREIJER-PIERIK
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 42
(42) The Regulation respects the intellectual property rights of patent owners (Article 17(2) of EU Charter of Fundamental Rights), although it includes a restriction on the ability to enforce a SEP that has not been registered within a certain time-limit and introduces a requirement to conduct a FRAND determination before enforcing individual SEPs. The limitation on the exercise of intellectual property rights is allowed under the EU Charter, provided that the proportionality principle is respected. According to settled case-law, fundamental rights can be restricted provided that those restrictions correspond to objectives of general interest pursued by the Union and do not constitute, with regard to the aim pursued, a disproportionate and intolerable interference which infringes the very essence of the rights guaranteed39 . In that respect, this Regulation is in the public interest in that it provides a uniform, open and predictable information and outcome on SEPs for the benefit of SEP holder, implementers and end users, at Union level. It aims at dissemination of technology for the mutual advantage of the SEP holders and implementers. Furthermore, the rules concerning the FRAND determination are temporary thus limited and aimed at improving and streamlining the process but are not ultimately binding.40 __________________ 39 Judgment of the Court of Justice of 13 December 1979, Hauer v. Land Rheinland-Pfalz, C-44/79, EU:C:1979:290, para. 32; judgment of the Court of Justice of 11 July 1989, Hermann Schräder HS Kraftfutter GmbH & Co. KG v. Hauptzollamt Gronau, C- 256/87, EU:C:1999:332, para. 15, and judgment of the Court of Justice of 13 July 1989, Hubert Wachauf v. Bundesamt für Ernährung und Forstwirtschaft, C- 5/88, EU:C:1989:321, paras. 17 and 18. 40 The conciliation procedure follows the conditions for mandatory recourse to alternative dispute settlement procedures as a condition for the admissibility of an action before the courts, as outlined in the CJEU judgments; Joint Cases C-317/08 to C-320/08 Alassini and Others of 18 March 2010, and Case C-75/16 Menini and Rampanelli v. Banco Popolare Società Cooperativa of 14 June 2017, taking into account the specificities of SEP licensing.deleted
2023/10/31
Committee: JURI
Amendment 221 #
Antonius MANDERS, Annie SCHREIJER-PIERIK
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 43
(43) The FRAND determination is also consistent with the right to an effective remedy and to access to justice as laid down in Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union as the implementer and the SEP holder fully retain that right. In case of failure to register within the prescribed time limit, the exclusion of the right to effective enforcement is limited and necessary and meets objectives of general interest. As confirmed by the CJEU41 , the provision of a mandatory dispute resolution as a precondition to access to competent courts of Member States is deemed to be compatible with the principle of effective judicial protection. The FRAND determination follows the conditions for mandatory dispute resolution outlined in the CJEU judgments, taking into account the particular characteristics of SEP licensing. __________________ 41 Judgment of the Court of Justice of 18 March 2010, Rosalba Alassini v Telecom Italia SpA (C-317/08), Filomena Califano v Wind SpA (C-318/08), Lucia Anna Giorgia Iacono v Telecom Italia SpA (C- 319/08) and Multiservice Srl v Telecom Italia SpA (C-320/08), Joined cases C- 317/08, C-318/08, C-319/08 and C-320/08, EU:C:2010:146, and judgement of the Court of Justice of 14 June 2017,Livio Menini and Maria Antonia Rampanelli v Banco Popolare – Società Cooperativa, C- 75/16, EU:C:2017:457deleted
2023/10/31
Committee: JURI
Amendment 225 #
Antonius MANDERS, Annie SCHREIJER-PIERIK
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 46
(46) SMEs may be involved in SEP licensing both as SEP holders and implementers. While there are currently a few SME SEP holders, the efficiencies produced with this Regulation are likely to facilitate the licensing of their SEP. Additional conditions are necessary to relieve the cost burden on such SMEs such as reduced administration fees and potentially reduced fees for essentiality checks and conciliation in addition to free support and trainings. The SEPs of micro and small enterprises should not be the subject of sampling for essentiality check, but they should be able to propose SEPs for essentiality checks if they wish to. SME implementers should likewise benefit from reduced access fees and free support and trainings. Finally, SEP holders should be encouraged to incentivise licensing by SMEs through low volume discounts or exemptions from FRAND royalties.
2023/10/31
Committee: JURI
Amendment 228 #
Antonius MANDERS, Annie SCHREIJER-PIERIK
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 Council.45 __________________ 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
Amendment 233 #
Antonius MANDERS, Annie SCHREIJER-PIERIK
Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point c
(c) a procedure to evaluate the essentiality of registered SEPs;deleted
2023/10/31
Committee: JURI
Amendment 251 #
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
Amendment 256 #
Antonius MANDERS, Annie SCHREIJER-PIERIK
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.
2023/10/31
Committee: JURI
Amendment 266 #
Antonius MANDERS, Annie SCHREIJER-PIERIK
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 11
(11) ‘patent pool’ means an entity created by an agreement between consortium of at least two companies agreeing to cross-license patents relating two or more SEPa particular technology. The creation of a patent pool can save holders toand license one or more of their patents to es not only time, but also often offer better scrutiny on essentiality, more clarity on aggregate licensing fees and the license rates can be expected to be FRAND. Additionally, they can function as one- stop-shop solutiones another or to third parties;d should therefore be stimulated in its use.
2023/10/31
Committee: JURI
Amendment 268 #
Antonius MANDERS, Annie SCHREIJER-PIERIK
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 12
(12) ‘peer evaluation’ means a process for the re-examination of the preliminary results of essentiality checks by evaluators other that those that carried out the original essentiality check;deleted
2023/10/31
Committee: JURI
Amendment 271 #
Antonius MANDERS, Annie SCHREIJER-PIERIK
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 18 a (new)
(18a) ‘Unitary Patent’ means a legal title that provides uniform protection across all participating countries on a one-stop- shop basis, providing huge cost advantages and reducing administrative burdens;
2023/10/31
Committee: JURI
Amendment 272 #
Antonius MANDERS, Annie SCHREIJER-PIERIK
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 18 b (new)
(18b) ‘Unified Patent Court ’ means an agreement between EU countries to set up a single and specialised patent jurisdiction, used for resolving SEP disputes;
2023/10/31
Committee: JURI
Amendment 273 #
Antonius MANDERS, Annie SCHREIJER-PIERIK
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 18 c (new)
(18c) ‘Unitary Patent Register’ means a register that contains patent holders’ commitment to license patents on FRAND terms;
2023/10/31
Committee: JURI
Amendment 274 #
Antonius MANDERS, Annie SCHREIJER-PIERIK
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 18 d (new)
(18d) ‘Patent Mediation and Arbitration Centre’ means a centre that can be used to resolve SEP disputes, such as determining the essentiality of the patent(s) concerned and the appropriate FRAND licensing conditions. It offers support in the settlement of disputes relating to “classic” European patents and Unitary Patents. The Court may explore with the parties, the possibility to reach a settlement using the facilities of the Patent Mediation and Arbitration Centre;
2023/10/31
Committee: JURI
Amendment 280 #
Antonius MANDERS, Annie SCHREIJER-PIERIK
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 2 – point c
(c) set up and administer a system for assessment of the essentiality of SEPs;deleted
2023/10/31
Committee: JURI
Amendment 284 #
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
Amendment 286 #
Antonius MANDERS, Annie SCHREIJER-PIERIK
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;deleted
2023/10/31
Committee: JURI
Amendment 290 #
Antonius MANDERS, Annie SCHREIJER-PIERIK
Proposal for a regulation
Article -4 (new)
Article-4 European Patent Office 1. A Union register for SEPs ('the register') is established, in cooperation with the European Patent Office. 2. The essentiality check of standard essential patents shall be conducted, where necessary, as part of a patent application at the European Patent Office.
2023/10/31
Committee: JURI
Amendment 291 #
Antonius MANDERS, Annie SCHREIJER-PIERIK
Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 1
1. A Union register for SEPs ('the register') is established.deleted
2023/10/31
Committee: JURI
Amendment 295 #
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
Amendment 296 #
Antonius MANDERS, Annie SCHREIJER-PIERIK
Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 4 – point c
(c) information on whether an essentiality check or peer evaluation have been performed and reference to the result;deleted
2023/10/31
Committee: JURI
Amendment 300 #
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
Amendment 301 #
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
Amendment 302 #
Antonius MANDERS, Annie SCHREIJER-PIERIK
Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 4 – point i
(i) the date of removal of the SEP from the register pursuant to Article 25 and the grounds for removal;deleted
2023/10/31
Committee: JURI
Amendment 309 #
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
Amendment 311 #
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
Amendment 312 #
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
Amendment 315 #
Antonius MANDERS, Annie SCHREIJER-PIERIK
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
Amendment 330 #
Antonius MANDERS, Annie SCHREIJER-PIERIK
Proposal for a regulation
Article 8
Information pertaining to essentiality A SEP holder shall provide to the competence centre the following information to be included in the database and referenced in the register: (a) a registered SEP made by a competent court of a Member State within 6 months from the publication of such decision. (b) 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.Article 8 deleted a final decision on essentiality for any essentiality check prior to [OJ:
2023/10/31
Committee: JURI
Amendment 342 #
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
Amendment 343 #
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
Amendment 344 #
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 licensdeleted;
2023/10/31
Committee: JURI
Amendment 355 #
Antonius MANDERS, Annie SCHREIJER-PIERIK
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
Amendment 361 #
Antonius MANDERS, Annie SCHREIJER-PIERIK
Proposal for a regulation
Chapter 2 – title
Notification of a standard and an aggregate royalty
2023/10/31
Committee: JURI
Amendment 368 #
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 estandard; (f) SEP holders referred to in point (c); (g) unless the notifying parties specifyimated 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
Amendment 374 #
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
Amendment 378 #
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 shale 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 supportl 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
Amendment 389 #
Catharina RINZEMA, Bart GROOTHUIS, Annie SCHREIJER-PIERIK, Antonius MANDERS
Proposal for a regulation
Article 18
[...]deleted
2023/10/31
Committee: JURI
Amendment 421 #
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
Amendment 425 #
Antonius MANDERS, Annie SCHREIJER-PIERIK
Proposal for a regulation
Article 20 – paragraph 6
6. The request for registration will only be accepted following the payment of the registration fee by the SEP holder. The Commission shall determine the registration fee in the implementing act issued based on Art. 63(5). The registration fee shall include, in case of medium and large enterprises, the expected costs and fees of the essentiality check for SEPs selected pursuant to Article 29(1).
2023/10/31
Committee: JURI
Amendment 426 #
Antonius MANDERS, Annie SCHREIJER-PIERIK
Proposal for a regulation
Article 22
Examination of the conditions of 1. shall be checked annually for completeness and correctness. 2. methodology for selecting a sample of SEP registrations for checks. 3. contain the information in accordance with Articles 4 and 5 or contains incomplete or inaccurate information, the competence centre shall request the SEP holder to provide the complete and accurate information within the set time limit of no less than 2 months. 4. the correct and complete information, the registration shall be suspended from the register, until such time as the incompleteness or inaccuracy is remedied. 5. 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. 6. information on a SEP pursuant to this article shall be made free of charge.Article 22 deleted registration A sample of SEP registrations The EUIPO shall adopt a Where the registration does not If the SEP holder fails to provide A SEP holder whose SEP has been Any completing or correcting
2023/10/31
Committee: JURI
Amendment 429 #
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
Amendment 434 #
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
Amendment 437 #
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
Amendment 441 #
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
Amendment 442 #
Antonius MANDERS, Annie SCHREIJER-PIERIK
Proposal for a regulation
Article 23 – paragraph 7
7. The treatment of requests for correction pursuant to This article by the competence centre shall be suspended 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 the database pursuant to Article 33(1).deleted
2023/10/31
Committee: JURI
Amendment 443 #
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
Amendment 455 #
Antonius MANDERS, Annie SCHREIJER-PIERIK
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
Amendment 457 #
Antonius MANDERS, Annie SCHREIJER-PIERIK
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
Amendment 460 #
Antonius MANDERS, Annie SCHREIJER-PIERIK
Proposal for a regulation
Title IV
IV Evaluators and Conciliators
2023/10/31
Committee: JURI
Amendment 461 #
Antonius MANDERS, Annie SCHREIJER-PIERIK
Proposal for a regulation
Article 26 – title
Evaluators and cConciliators
2023/10/31
Committee: JURI
Amendment 462 #
Antonius MANDERS, Annie SCHREIJER-PIERIK
Proposal for a regulation
Article 26 – paragraph 1
1. An evaluator shall conduct essentiality checks.deleted
2023/10/31
Committee: JURI
Amendment 465 #
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
Amendment 468 #
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
Amendment 471 #
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
Amendment 474 #
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
Amendment 477 #
Antonius MANDERS, Annie SCHREIJER-PIERIK
Proposal for a regulation
Article 26 – paragraph 3
3. The evaluators and conciliators shall adhere to a code of conduct.
2023/10/31
Committee: JURI
Amendment 479 #
Antonius MANDERS, Annie SCHREIJER-PIERIK
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
Amendment 486 #
Antonius MANDERS, Annie SCHREIJER-PIERIK
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
Amendment 489 #
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
Amendment 494 #
Antonius MANDERS, Annie SCHREIJER-PIERIK
Proposal for a regulation
Article 27 – paragraph 2
2. The competence centre shall establish a roster of suitable candidates for evaluators or conciliators. There may be different rosters of evaluators and conciliators depending on the technical area of their specialisation or expertise.
2023/10/31
Committee: JURI
Amendment 498 #
Antonius MANDERS, Annie SCHREIJER-PIERIK
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).
2023/10/31
Committee: JURI
Amendment 500 #
Antonius MANDERS, Annie SCHREIJER-PIERIK
Proposal for a regulation
Title V
Essentiality checks of standard essential patentsdeleted
2023/10/31
Committee: JURI
Amendment 515 #
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
Amendment 516 #
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
Amendment 537 #
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
Amendment 544 #
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
Amendment 549 #
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
Amendment 554 #
Antonius MANDERS, Annie SCHREIJER-PIERIK
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
Amendment 558 #
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
Amendment 560 #
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
Amendment 565 #
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
Amendment 568 #
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
Amendment 575 #
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
Amendment 580 #
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
Amendment 583 #
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
Amendment 586 #
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
Amendment 589 #
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
Amendment 592 #
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
Amendment 632 #
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
Amendment 638 #
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, ordeleted
2023/10/31
Committee: JURI
Amendment 646 #
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
Amendment 663 #
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
Amendment 696 #
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
Amendment 707 #
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
Amendment 710 #
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
Amendment 734 #
Antonius MANDERS, Annie SCHREIJER-PIERIK
Proposal for a regulation
Article 61 a (new)
Article61a Judicial and financial support 1. Competent courts of Member States and the Unified Patent Court shall ensure that the court fees do not exceed the fee of registering a patent. 2. A relevant part of the patent application fee shall contribute to an insurance to ensure that the relevant natural and legal persons receive, under certain conditions, free of charge judicial support, such as a legal representative during court proceedings.
2023/10/31
Committee: JURI
Amendment 740 #
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
Amendment 743 #
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
Amendment 744 #
Antonius MANDERS, Annie SCHREIJER-PIERIK
Proposal for a regulation
Article 63 – paragraph 2 – point c
(c) for the essentiality check carried out by the evaluator in accordance with Article 31 and by the peer evaluator in accordance with Article 32;deleted
2023/10/31
Committee: JURI
Amendment 747 #
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
Amendment 749 #
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
Amendment 750 #
Antonius MANDERS, Annie SCHREIJER-PIERIK
Proposal for a regulation
Article 63 – paragraph 3 – point c
(c) the fees referred to in paragraph (2), point (c) by the SEP holder that requested an essentiality check pursuant to Article 29(5) or peer evaluation pursuant to Article 32(1) and the implementer that requested an essentiality check pursuant to Article 29(6);deleted
2023/10/31
Committee: JURI
Amendment 756 #
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
Amendment 775 #
Antonius MANDERS, Annie SCHREIJER-PIERIK
Proposal for a regulation
Article 72 – paragraph 1
1. This Regulation shall only enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.after:
2023/10/31
Committee: JURI
Amendment 776 #
Antonius MANDERS, Annie SCHREIJER-PIERIK
Proposal for a regulation
Article 72 – paragraph 1 – point a (new)
(a) the Commission has beyond reasonable doubt shown that the functioning of the current system causes major disruption in the internal market, and therefore justifying the measures proposed in this Regulation; and
2023/10/31
Committee: JURI
Amendment 777 #
Antonius MANDERS, Annie SCHREIJER-PIERIK
Proposal for a regulation
Article 72 – paragraph 1 – point b (new)
(b) the European Patent Office has been consulted and following this consultation this Regulation has been amended accordingly; and
2023/10/31
Committee: JURI
Amendment 778 #
Antonius MANDERS, Annie SCHREIJER-PIERIK
Proposal for a regulation
Article 72 – paragraph 1 – point c (new)
(c) the Unified Patent Court has been consulted and following this consultation this Regulation has been amended accordingly.
2023/10/31
Committee: JURI
Amendment 779 #
Antonius MANDERS, Annie SCHREIJER-PIERIK
Proposal for a regulation
Article 72 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 (new)
This Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.
2023/10/31
Committee: JURI
@parltrack
@parltrack@eupolicy.social
[javascript protected email address]
code AGPLv3.0+
data ODBLv1.0
site content CC-By-Sa-3.0

ParlTrack - 2011-2024

© European Union, 2011 – Source: European Parliament
Hosted by AS250.net Foundation