The Research Of The Restrictive Rules Of The Standard Essential Patent Injunctive Relief

When the patent right granted to the inventor by the law is infringed,the right holder has the right to choose the way of relief.Injunctive relief is one of the main methods given by the law.Standard-setting organizations usually require standard essential patents owners to make a "FRAND permission statement".that is,"fair,reasonable,non-discriminatory"(FRAND)principle.It allows third parties to use their standard essential patents.Then can patent owners claim a relief under the FRAND statement? If so,is it possible to claim any relief ? Whether the necessary patent right holders can be claim injunctive relief under the FRAND principle has become a hot issue in the field of worldwide intellectual property and antitrust.This paper chooses the representative case "Huawei v.ZTE" as an example.This case focuses on the applications of injunctive relief under the SEPs situation,analyzes the case and the judgment,and finds out the causes of this problem from two aspects.One of the causes for the problem is from the policy which is the conflicts between the standard of the necessary intellectual property rights policy and intellectual property rights.The other one is the core reason,that the knowledge the balance between property law and competition law is broken under the standard necessary patent.Two pair of concepts about legal relationship are involved in: the relationship between FRAND Permission Statement and injunctive relief and the one between the ban and the abuse of market dominance.The second relationship emphasizes on the validation of the FRAND permission statement,the explanation about the abuse of market dominance which is 102 rule of TFEU,and the limitations of the injunctive relief,that is the "five steps" rule.Finally,combining the present situation o legislation,judicature and law enforcement in China,the author puts forward the rule of "intentional + goodwill" rule,which is designed to provide reference suggestions for relevant judicial practice.