71 Amendments of Ivan ŠTEFANEC related to 2023/0133(COD)
Amendment 82 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 4
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, certainthe 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 within the single market.
Amendment 86 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 5
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. and the relevant use cases, for which SEPs can be registered. However, the inclusion within the scope of this Regulation of standards that have been published before its entry into force should not impact licences that are already in force.
Amendment 91 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 8
Recital 8
(8) In view of the global character of SEP licensing, references to aggregate royalty and FRAND determination may refer to global aggregate royalties and global FRAND determinations, or as otherwise agreed by the notifying stakeholders or the parties to the proceedingparties, between a SEP holder and an implementer. When referring to aggregate royalty and FRAND determination it is necessary to attend the trade circumstances.
Amendment 95 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 13
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 and start-ups, the competence centre should offer assistance to SMEsthem. 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.
Amendment 105 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 18
Recital 18
(18) Once a standard has been notified or an aggregate royalty is specified, whichever is made first, the competence centre will open the registration of SEPs by holders of SEPs in force in one or more Member States.
Amendment 109 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 20
Recital 20
(20) SEP holders may register after the indicated time limit. However, in that case, SEP holders should not be able to collect royalties and claim damages for the period of delay.
Amendment 114 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 24
Recital 24
(24) To further ensure the quality of the register and avoid over-registration, essentiality checks should also be conducted randomly and anonymously 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.
Amendment 119 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 27
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 voluntarily 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.
Amendment 129 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 34
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, tThe FRAND determination should be an effective procedure for the parties to reach agreement beforeand settle any ongoing 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.
Amendment 135 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 35
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 injunctionof 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 and start-ups, 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.
Amendment 140 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 37
Recital 37
(37) Upon appointment, the conciliation centre should refer the FRAND determination to the conciliator, who should examine whether the request contains the necessary information, and communicate the schedule of procedure to the parties or the party requesting the continuations of the FRAND determination.
Amendment 149 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 46
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 start-ups and 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 and start-up 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.
Amendment 152 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 47
Recital 47
(47) In order to supplement certain non- essential elements of this Regulation, the power to adopt acts, in accordance with Article 290 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, should be delegated to the Commission in respect of the items to be entered in the register or in respect of determining the relevant existing standards or to identify use cases of standards or parts thereof for which the Commission establishes that there are no significant difficulties or inefficiencies in licensing on FRAND terms. It is of particular importance that the Commission carry out appropriate consultations during its preparatory work, including at expert level, and that those consultations be conducted in accordance with the principles laid down in the Interinstitutional Agreement of 13 April 2016 on Better Law-Making44 . In particular, to ensure equal participation in the preparation of delegated acts, the European Parliament and the Council receive all documents at the same time as Member States’ experts, and their experts systematically have access to meetings of Commission expert groups dealing with the preparation of delegated acts. __________________ 44 OJ L 123, 12.5.2016, p. 1.
Amendment 153 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 48
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. Evaluators and conciliators should be, at all times, of good repute and possess sufficient knowledge, skills and experience to performer their duties. 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.)
Amendment 162 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 2 – introductory part
Article 1 – paragraph 2 – introductory part
2. TIn accordance with article 66, this Regulation shall apply to patents that are in force in one or more Member States and are essential to a standard that has been published by a standard development organisation, to which the SEP holder has made a commitment to license its SEPs on fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory (FRAND) terms and conditions and that is not subject to a royalty-free intellectual property policy,
Amendment 169 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 2 – point a
Article 1 – paragraph 2 – point a
(a) aftwhere the entry into force of this Regre is sufficient evidence that, as regards identified use cases of certain standards or parts thereof, SEP licensing negotiations on FRAND terms do give rise to significant difficulation, with the exceptions provided in paragraph 3;es or inefficiencies affecting the functioning of the internal market, and
Amendment 176 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 2 – point b
Article 1 – paragraph 2 – point b
(b) before the entry into force of this Regthe Commission has, after an appropriate consultation, in accordance with Article 66 process, by means of a delegated act pursuant to Article 67, established a list of such use cases, standards or parts thereof.
Amendment 177 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 3
Article 1 – paragraph 3
Amendment 179 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 4
Article 1 – paragraph 4
Amendment 183 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 7
Article 1 – paragraph 7
Amendment 184 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 1
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 1
(1) ‘standard essential patent’ or ‘SEP’ means any patent that isprotects technology essential to a standard;
Amendment 187 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 5
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 5
(5) ‘standard development organisation’ or ‘SDO’ means any standardising body that is not a private industrial association developing proprietary technical specifications, that develops technical or quality requirements or recommendations for products, production processes, services or methods;
Amendment 193 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 11
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 11
(11) ‘patent pool’ means an entity created by an agreement between two or more SEP holders to license one or more of their patents to one another or to third parties, through a single transaction and on an ongoing basis;
Amendment 195 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 11 a (new)
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 11 a (new)
(11 a) ‘patent assertion entities or ‘PEA’ or ‘patent troll’ means an entity characterised by an “obtain and assert” business model, with the purpose of generating revenues through licensing fees, royalties and damage compensations;
Amendment 196 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 11 b (new)
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 11 b (new)
(11 b) ‘non-practicing entities’ or ‘NPEs’ means any entity that owns patents (either through acquisition, in-house development, or both) but does not practice them;
Amendment 198 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 18 a (new)
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 18 a (new)
(18 a) ‘significant difficulties or inefficiencies’ means material impediments to the normal operation of the internal market.
Amendment 207 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 2 – point h
Article 3 – paragraph 2 – point h
(h) provide training, support and general advice on SEPs to SMEs and start- ups;
Amendment 210 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 3 – point i
Article 4 – paragraph 3 – point i
(i) the existence of any public standard terms and conditions for SEP licensing to SMEs and start-ups;
Amendment 216 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 2 – point c
Article 5 – paragraph 2 – point c
(c) public standard terms and conditions for SEP licensing to SMEs and start-ups pursuant to Article 62(1), if available;
Amendment 227 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 8 – paragraph 1 – point b
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.
Amendment 232 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 9 – paragraph 1 a (new)
Article 9 – paragraph 1 a (new)
By way of derogation from paragraph 1, patent polls, in case of confidentiality agreements and confidential procedures, shall provide the protected information directly to the competence centre.
Amendment 246 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 14 – paragraph 5
Article 14 – paragraph 5
5. The competence centre shall also notify the relevant standard development organisation of the publication. In case of notification pursuant to paragraphs (3) and (4), it shall also notify, where possible, known SEP holders individually or request confirmation from the standard development organisation that it has duly notified the SEP holders.
Amendment 265 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 18 – paragraph 3 – point d a (new)
Article 18 – paragraph 3 – point d a (new)
(d a) description of the final product in which it should be implemented.
Amendment 267 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 18 – paragraph 6
Article 18 – paragraph 6
6. If the requests for participation include SEP holders representing collectively at least an estimated 20% of all SEPs for the standard, and implementers holding collectively at least 10% relevant market share in the Union or at least 10 SMEs and start-ups, 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.
Amendment 273 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 18 – paragraph 13 a (new)
Article 18 – paragraph 13 a (new)
13 a. The courts of the Member States may request the competence centre for an expert opinion/evidence on an aggregate royalty.
Amendment 287 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 24 – paragraph 1
Article 24 – paragraph 1
1. A SEP that is not registered within 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,licensed or implemented from the time- limit set out in Article 20(3) until its registration in the register, .without prejudice to SEPs licensed before the entry into force of this Regulation.
Amendment 288 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 24 – paragraph 2
Article 24 – paragraph 2
Amendment 290 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 24 – paragraph 3
Article 24 – paragraph 3
Amendment 291 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 24 – paragraph 4
Article 24 – paragraph 4
Amendment 304 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 26 – paragraph 4
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, that shall act in anonymity.
Amendment 306 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 26 – paragraph 4 a (new)
Article 26 – paragraph 4 a (new)
4 a. The competence centre shall require that evaluators shall at all times be of sufficiently good repute, independent, impartial and possess sufficient knowledge, skills and experience to perform their duties.
Amendment 307 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 26 – paragraph 4 b (new)
Article 26 – paragraph 4 b (new)
4 b. The competence centre shall perform a case-by-case assessment to confirm that the any situation of direct or indirect conflict of interest negatively affect the performance of the evaluator or conciliator.
Amendment 308 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 26 – paragraph 4 c (new)
Article 26 – paragraph 4 c (new)
4 c. The Competence centre shall create a repository of conciliations reports, and ensure that the confidential version would be accessible only to conciliators.
Amendment 323 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 29 – paragraph 4
Article 29 – paragraph 4
4. If a SEP selected for essentiality check was already the subject of a previous or ongoing essentiality check pursuant to This title or of an essentiality decision or check referred performed, in good-faith, by an independent evaluator in Article 8the context of a patent pool, no additional essentiality check shall be done, if verified the criteria foreseen in Article 29 (4a). The result from the previous essentiality check or decision shall be used for the determination of the percentage of sampled per SEP holder and per specific registered standard that has passed successfully the essentiality check.
Amendment 324 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 29 – paragraph 4 a (new)
Article 29 – paragraph 4 a (new)
4 a. Patent pools shall transmit to the competence centre all the information about the methodology of the essentiality check and the criteria used for the selection of the evaluators.
Amendment 337 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 34 – paragraph 4
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.
Amendment 340 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 36 – paragraph 1 – point f a (new)
Article 36 – paragraph 1 – point f a (new)
(f a) commitment to comply with the outcome of the FRAND determination.
Amendment 346 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 38 – paragraph 3 – introductory part
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:
Amendment 357 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 38 – paragraph 3 a (new)
Article 38 – paragraph 3 a (new)
3 a. Where the responding party informs the competence centre of its decision not to participate in the FRAND determination, or not to commit to comply with the outcome the competence centre shall terminate the FRAND determination.
Amendment 358 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 38 – paragraph 4
Article 38 – paragraph 4
Amendment 376 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 38 – paragraph 5
Article 38 – paragraph 5
Amendment 382 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 38 – paragraph 6
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. SME, as set out in paragraph (3). SMEs and start-ups that are parties to the FRAND determination may request to limit the territorial scope of the FRAND determination.
Amendment 387 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 39 – paragraph 1
Article 39 – paragraph 1
1. Following the reply to the FRAND determination by the responding party in accordance with Article 38(2), or the request to continue in accordance with Article 38(5), the competence centre shall propose at least 3 candidates for the FRAND determination from the roster of conciliators referred to Article 27(2). The parties or party shall select one of the proposed candidates as a conciliator for the FRAND determination.
Amendment 394 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 44 – paragraph 1
Article 44 – paragraph 1
1. A party may submit an objection stating that the conciliator is unable to make a FRAND determination on legal grounds, such as a previous binding FRAND determination or agreement between the parties, no later than in the first written submission at any time. The other party shall be given opportunity to submit its observations.
Amendment 399 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 45 – paragraph 2
Article 45 – paragraph 2
2. The conciliator may invite the parties or the party requesting the continuation of the FRAND determination, as set out in Article 38 (3), to meet with him/her or may communicate with him/her orally or in writing.
Amendment 403 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 45 – paragraph 3
Article 45 – paragraph 3
3. The parties or the party requesting the continuation of the FRAND determination, as set out in Article 38 (3), shall cooperate in good faith with the conciliator and, in particular, shall attend the meetings, comply with his/her requests to submit all relevant documents, information and explanations as well as use the means at their disposal to enable the conciliator to hear witnesses and experts whom the conciliator might call.
Amendment 406 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 45 – paragraph 4
Article 45 – paragraph 4
4. The responding party, that failed to respond within the time limit laid down in Article 38 (2), may join the FRAND determination at any moment before its termination.
Amendment 409 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 45 – paragraph 5
Article 45 – paragraph 5
5. At any stage of the procedure upon request by both parties, or the party requesting the continuation of the FRAND determination, as set out in Article 38 (3), as applicable, the conciliator shall terminate the FRAND determination.
Amendment 413 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 46 – paragraph 1 – point b
Article 46 – paragraph 1 – point b
Amendment 416 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 46 – paragraph 2 a (new)
Article 46 – paragraph 2 a (new)
2 a. If a party withdraws its commitment to comply with the outcome of the FRAND determination, the conciliator shall terminate the procedure.
Amendment 420 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 46 – paragraph 3
Article 46 – paragraph 3
3. If the party requesting the continuation of the FRAND determination, as set out in Article 38 (3), 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.
Amendment 433 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 56 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
Article 56 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
1. In addition to the termination of the FRAND determination for reasons provided for Article 38(43), Article 38 (3a), Article 44(3), Article 45(5), Article 46(2), point (b), Article 46(3) and Article 47(2), the FRAND determination shall be terminated in any of the following ways:
Amendment 438 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 56 – paragraph 4
Article 56 – paragraph 4
Amendment 443 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 56 – paragraph 5
Article 56 – paragraph 5
Amendment 469 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 63 – paragraph 3 – point b
Article 63 – paragraph 3 – point b
(b) the fees referred to in paragraph (2), point (b) equally by the partiesy that participated inrequested 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;
Amendment 472 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 64 – paragraph 2
Article 64 – paragraph 2
2. If the amounts requested are not paid in full within 10 days after the date of the request, the competence centre may notify the defaulting party and give it the opportunity to make the required payment within [5] days. It shall submit a copy of the request to the other party, in case of an aggregate royalty or FRAND determination.
Amendment 480 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 66 – paragraph 1
Article 66 – paragraph 1
1. Until [OJ: please insert the date = 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 the delegated act in accordance with paragraph (4). The procedures, notification and publication requirements set out in this Regulation apply mutatis mutandis.
Amendment 482 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 66 – paragraph 2
Article 66 – paragraph 2
2. Until [OJ: please insert the date = 28 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.
Amendment 484 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 66 – paragraph 3
Article 66 – paragraph 3
3. Until [OJ: please insert the date = 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.
Amendment 486 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 66 – paragraph 4
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].
Amendment 491 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 70 – paragraph 1 a (new)
Article 70 – paragraph 1 a (new)
1 a. By [OJ: please insert the date = 3 years from entry into force of this regulation] the Commission shall evaluate the impact that the essentiality check system and the FRAND determination system on the competitiveness of the Union SEP holders on a global level and on innovation in the Union.