On The Injunctive Relief Of Standard-Essential Patent

Considering the Patents right is a private right, and the injunctive relief is expressly protected by law, the patent holder have the freedom to choose injunctive relief as remedy, but when patents are essential to technical standards (Standard-Essential Patents) and the patent holder have committed to license on "fair reasonable and non-discriminatory (FRAND)" terms, whether the patentee still be entitled to seek injunctive relief or not? If so, what factors should be measured and how? Can we offer a viable solution mode? These problems have great research value not only in theory, but also for the industry. After analyzed the latest policy documents and cases and academic points of the United States, the European, The author conclude: FRAND commitment should not necessarily exclude the patentee’s right to apply injunctive relief, but should be considered based on the specific circumstances of the each case. All interests as follow should be carefully balanced:the public interest s and the interests of SEP holder and the competition. There is no answer for how to balance these interests for each party (the patent holder, standard users or consumers and third-party) represents the public interest, and every person has specific value judgment. On specific solutions model," license negotiations before the injunctive relief take effect" model is appropriate, and it will be better if some improvement can be made based on it.Any way, the ultimate goal is to force the parties back to the table to negotiate in good faith to get a license...