The article discusses the contrasting views of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) and the Office of Unfair Import Investigations (OUII) regarding Ericsson's ability to seek injunctive relief based on licensing declarations to the European Telecommunications Standards Institute (ETSI). While the CAFC ruled against Ericsson's claims within a specific context, the OUII's brief argues for Ericsson's right to pursue injunctions globally, suggesting significant interpretative differences between regulatory bodies on FRAND obligations in patent law contexts.
The OUII's cellular brief found that 'there is nothing in the ETSI Policy that prohibits Ericsson from seeking injunctive relief in jurisdictions around the world'.
Despite the differing contexts (antisuit injunction vs. exclusion order), each broadly considers the appropriateness of injunctive relief in view of licensing declarations submitted to ETSI.
There appears to be a considerable difference of opinion between the CAFC and ITC regarding interpretation and performance of such declarations.
The OUII's brief begins its FRAND analysis by noting that '[t]he first step... is to determine whether a FRAND obligation exists regarding the asserted patents'.
Collection
[
|
...
]