BETA

58 Amendments of Adrián VÁZQUEZ LÁZARA related to 2023/0133(COD)

Adrián VÁZQUEZ LÁZARA

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 2

(2) This Regulation aims at improving the licensing of SEPs, by addressing the causes of inefficient licensing such as insufficient transparency with regard to SEPs, fair, reasonable and non- discriminatory (FRAND) terms and conditions and licensing in the value chain, and limited use of dispute resolution procedures for resolving FRAND disputes. All these together reduce the overall fairness and efficiency of the system and result in excess administrative and transactional costs, which reduces resources available for investment in innovation. By improving the licensing of SEPs, the Regulation aims to incentivise participation by European firms in the standard development process and the broad implementation of such standardised technologies, particularly in Internet of Things (IoT) industries. Therefore, this Regulation pursues objectives that are complementary to, but different from that of protecting undistorted competition, guaranteed by Articles 101 and 102 TFEU. This Regulation should also be without prejudice to national competition rules.

2023/10/31
Committee: JURI

Adrián VÁZQUEZ LÁZARA

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 2 a (new)

(2a) Good faith negotiations between parties willing to participate occur in many FRAND cases, yet in other instances, SEPs become the subject of legal proceedings. This Regulation aims to provide advantages to both Union SEP holders and SEP implementers by introducing mechanisms designed to address two key issues: firstly, situations where SEP implementers unreasonably delay or decline FRAND licenses; and secondly, scenarios where SEP holders impose non-FRAND royalties due to the threat of injunction and a lack of transparency.

2023/10/31
Committee: JURI

Adrián VÁZQUEZ LÁZARA

Proposal for a regulation
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 generation~~standards 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 -~~ standards such as e.g. Wi-Fi, HEVC, and cellular standards, including LTE and 5G, 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, certain 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 and conditions do not give rise to significant difficulties or inefficiencies.

2023/10/31
Committee: JURI

Adrián VÁZQUEZ LÁZARA

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 12

(12) ~~To facilitate the implementation of this regulation~~As the agency of the European Union in charge of intellectual property rights, the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) should perform the relevant tasks by means of a competence centre and facilitate the implementation of this Regulation. The EUIPO has extensive experience with managing databases, electronic registers and alternative dispute settlement mechanisms, which are key aspects of the functions assigned under this Regulation. It is ~~necessary~~crucial to equip the competence centre with necessary human and financial resources to ~~fulfil~~efficiently perform its tasks.

2023/10/31
Committee: JURI

Adrián VÁZQUEZ LÁZARA

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~~of 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

Adrián VÁZQUEZ LÁZARA

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

Adrián VÁZQUEZ LÁZARA

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 20 a (new)

(20a) Regardless of the position within the supply chain at which a potential licensee operates, an SEP holder must not decline to grant a FRAND license to any party seeking one, for any standard to which the SEP holder or a prior holder has made a FRAND commitment

2023/10/31
Committee: JURI

Adrián VÁZQUEZ LÁZARA

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 23

(23) A SEP holder may also request the modification of a SEP registration. An interested stakeholder may also request the modification of a SEP registration, if it can demonstrate that the registration is inaccurate based on a definitive decision by a public authority. A SEP can only be removed from the register at the request of the SEP holder, if the patent is expired, was invalidated or found non-essential by a final decision or ruling of a competent court of a Member State ~~or found non- essential under this Regulation~~. Information on modifications to SEP registration shall be maintained to preserve transparency.

2023/10/31
Committee: JURI

Adrián VÁZQUEZ LÁZARA

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

Adrián VÁZQUEZ LÁZARA

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

Adrián VÁZQUEZ LÁZARA

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

Adrián VÁZQUEZ LÁZARA

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 26 a (new)

(26a) The technical conciliation procedure could also help the parties to discuss the relevant technical details for their specific licensing negotiation, e.g., how the SEP portfolio relates to the specific product and/or service implementation. The processes would be similar to current industry practices: following the execution of a mutual Non- Disclosure Agreement provided by the competence centre, SEP holders shall provide a relevant sample of claim charts for the patent families that it offers to license. In the event the licensor-SEP holder that enforces its patent-rights is an SME, the competence centre shall advice such SME in relation to the evaluation and exercise of its IP rights. The parties should be allowed to bring external technical advisors to the procedure.

2023/10/31
Committee: JURI

Adrián VÁZQUEZ LÁZARA

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

Adrián VÁZQUEZ LÁZARA

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 27 a (new)

(27a) The technical conciliation procedure should not take more than 5 months, unless otherwise agreed between the parties, and should be offered separately or combined with the FRAND determination procedure. The overall timing for the combined procedure should not go beyond the timing of 9 months foreseen in Article 37(1).

2023/10/31
Committee: JURI

Adrián VÁZQUEZ LÁZARA

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

Adrián VÁZQUEZ LÁZARA

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

Adrián VÁZQUEZ LÁZARA

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

Adrián VÁZQUEZ LÁZARA

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 30 a (new)

(30a) Recognizing the complexity and technical specificity inherent in negotiations surrounding SEPs, it is imperative to institute a structured ‘Technical Conciliation Procedure’, thereby facilitating more streamlined, transparent, and efficient discussions between concerned parties. This specialized procedure shall be organized and overseen by the competence centre, ensuring that both SEP holders and implementers have a fair and knowledgeable platform for negotiation.

2023/10/31
Committee: JURI

Adrián VÁZQUEZ LÁZARA

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 30 b (new)

(30b) The Technical Conciliation Procedure aims to mediate disputes by enabling parties to present their respective standpoints concerning the technical dimensions crucial to SEP licensing negotiations. By appointing a skilled technical conciliator from its roster, the competence centre ensures that the discussions are guided by technical expertise and a balanced perspective, essential for reaching mutually agreeable licensing terms.

2023/10/31
Committee: JURI

Adrián VÁZQUEZ LÁZARA

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 30 c (new)

(30c) To maintain the inclusivity and efficacy of this procedure, provision is designed for the participation of SMEs, either as SEP holders or implementers, guaranteeing their right to request this mandatory procedure. Conversely, entities other than SMEs may opt for this procedure upon mutual consent, reinforcing its role as a versatile tool for resolving disputes and aiding license agreement renewals. The procedure is designed to be time-efficient, with a maximum duration of five months for a standalone process, and not exceeding nine months when combined with a FRAND determination procedure, as per Article 37(1). This stipulation ensures that the parties involved are incentivized towards expedient and constructive engagement, minimizing potential delays in reaching licensing agreements.

2023/10/31
Committee: JURI

Adrián VÁZQUEZ LÁZARA

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 30 d (new)

(30d) The procedure hinges on detailed technical discussions where parties scrutinize the relevance of the SEP portfolio to their specific products or services. The competence centre shall provide the necessary resources, including a mutual NDA and assistance for SMEs, thereby ensuring that negotiations are based on a thorough understanding of the patents in question. Post-procedure, the technical conciliator shall compile a comprehensive report detailing the discussions, arguments, and a recommendation based on the deliberations. While maintaining confidentiality under the mutual NDA, this report shall be admissible in subsequent FRAND Determination procedures or ensuing litigation, ensuring continuity and reference to the insights gained during conciliation.

2023/10/31
Committee: JURI

Adrián VÁZQUEZ LÁZARA

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 30 e (new)

(30e) For SMEs, the procedure is particularly advantageous when combined with additional training and resources provided by the competence centre. By enhancing their understanding of SEP licensing and reducing financial burdens through reduced fees or pro bono services, SMEs are better positioned to engage in standard development, thereby aligning with broader EU objectives of technological innovation and SME participation. Additionally, the consistent application of the TPC enables the EUIPO’s competence centre to gain invaluable expertise in various technical realms pertinent to SEP licensing. This accumulated knowledge is instrumental in refining the centre’s approaches and methodologies, ultimately contributing to more sophisticated and informed handling of SEP-related matters

2023/10/31
Committee: JURI

Adrián VÁZQUEZ LÁZARA

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 or waiver of 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 toconciliation related fees in addition to free support and trainings. 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

Adrián VÁZQUEZ LÁZARA

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 49

(49) Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council46 should be amended to empower EUIPO to take on the tasks under this Regulation. The functions of the Executive Director should also be expanded to include the powers conferred on him under this Regulation. Furthermore, the EUIPO’s arbitration and mediation centre should be empowered to set up processes such as the aggregate royalty determination, technical conciliation procedure and the FRAND determination. __________________ 46 Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2017 on the European Union trade mark (OJ L 154, 16.6.2017, p. 1.)

2023/10/31
Committee: JURI

Adrián VÁZQUEZ LÁZARA

Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point c

(c) a ~~procedure to evaluate the essentiality of registered SEPs;~~technical conciliation procedure

2023/10/31
Committee: JURI

Adrián VÁZQUEZ LÁZARA

Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 7

(7) ‘implementer’ means a natural or legal person that implements, or intends to implement, a standard in a product, process, service or system; regardless of where in the supply chain the potential licensee operates.

2023/10/31
Committee: JURI

Adrián VÁZQUEZ LÁZARA

Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 a (new)

Article 2a License to all Standard essential patent holders, whether their patents pertain to standards covered by this Regulation or not, and where they or previous owners have committed to FRAND terms, must not decline to grant a FRAND license to any party seeking one, regardless of the position of the potential licensee within the supply chain.

2023/10/31
Committee: JURI

Adrián VÁZQUEZ LÁZARA

Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 2 – point b

(b) set up and manage rosters of ~~evaluators and conciliators;~~conciliators for the technical conciliation and FRAND determination procedures

2023/10/31
Committee: JURI

Adrián VÁZQUEZ LÁZARA

Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 2 – point c

(c) set up and administer a ~~system for assessment of the essentiality of SEPs;~~technical conciliation procedure

2023/10/31
Committee: JURI

Adrián VÁZQUEZ LÁZARA

Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 2 – point e

(e) provide training to ~~evaluators and conciliators~~conciliators for the technical conciliation procedure and FRAND determination;

2023/10/31
Committee: JURI

Adrián VÁZQUEZ LÁZARA, Catharina RINZEMA

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;

2023/10/31
Committee: JURI

Adrián VÁZQUEZ LÁZARA, Catharina RINZEMA

Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 4 – point c

(c) information on whether an essentiality check ~~or peer evaluation have been performed~~has been performed by a competent court of a Member State and reference to the result; if from a final judgement

2023/10/31
Committee: JURI

Adrián VÁZQUEZ LÁZARA, Catharina RINZEMA

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

Adrián VÁZQUEZ LÁZARA, Catharina RINZEMA

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

Adrián VÁZQUEZ LÁZARA

Proposal for a regulation
Article 18 – title

~~Non-binding expert opin~~Determination of an aggregate royalty by a non-binding expert opinion

2023/10/31
Committee: JURI

Adrián VÁZQUEZ LÁZARA

Proposal for a regulation
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 SME~~any combination of five SEP holders or implementers, 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.

2023/10/31
Committee: JURI

Adrián VÁZQUEZ LÁZARA

Proposal for a regulation
Article 18 – paragraph 8 – point b a (new)

(ba) Submit proof and documentation that could aid the panel in establishing an aggregate royalty.

2023/10/31
Committee: JURI

Adrián VÁZQUEZ LÁZARA, Catharina RINZEMA

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

Adrián VÁZQUEZ LÁZARA, Catharina RINZEMA

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

Adrián VÁZQUEZ LÁZARA, Catharina RINZEMA

Proposal for a regulation
Article 26 – paragraph 1

~~1. An evaluator shall conduct essentiality checks.~~deleted

2023/10/31
Committee: JURI

Adrián VÁZQUEZ LÁZARA

Proposal for a regulation
Article 26 – paragraph 2 – point c a (new)

(ca) mediate between parties in the technical conciliation procedure;

2023/10/31
Committee: JURI

Adrián VÁZQUEZ LÁZARA, Catharina RINZEMA

Proposal for a regulation
Article 26 – paragraph 3

3. The ~~evaluators and~~ conciliators shall have the requisite expertise and experience, be unbiased and independent and adhere to a code of conduct.

2023/10/31
Committee: JURI

Adrián VÁZQUEZ LÁZARA, Catharina RINZEMA

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

Adrián VÁZQUEZ LÁZARA, Catharina RINZEMA

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

Adrián VÁZQUEZ LÁZARA

Proposal for a regulation
Article 26 – paragraph 5 – point b

(b) the procedures pursuant to Articles 17, 18, ~~31 and 32~~Title V and Title VI.

2023/10/31
Committee: JURI

Adrián VÁZQUEZ LÁZARA

Proposal for a regulation
Article 27 – paragraph 2

2. The competence centre shall establish a roster of suitable candidates for ~~evaluators o~~technical conciliators and other conciliators. There ~~may~~shall be different rosters of ~~evaluators and~~ conciliators depending on the technical area of their specialisation or expertise and the qualification required for the procedure being conducted under this Regulation.

2023/10/31
Committee: JURI

Adrián VÁZQUEZ LÁZARA, Catharina RINZEMA

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).deleted

2023/10/31
Committee: JURI

Adrián VÁZQUEZ LÁZARA

Proposal for a regulation
Title V

~~Essentiality checks of standard essential patents~~Technical conciliation procedure

2023/10/31
Committee: JURI

Adrián VÁZQUEZ LÁZARA, Catharina RINZEMA

Proposal for a regulation
Article 28

General requirement for essentiality 1. administer a system of essentiality checks, ensuring that they are conducted in an objective and impartial manner and that confidentiality of the information obtained is safeguarded 2. The essentiality check shall be conducted by an evaluator selected pursuant to Article 27. Evaluators shall conduct essentiality checks of registered SEPs for the standard for which they are registered. 3. done on more than one SEP from the respective patent family. 4. or an ongoing essentiality check shall not preclude licensing negotiations or any court or administrative procedure in relation to a registered SEP. 5. result of the essentiality check and the reasons for it in a reasoned opinion, or, in case of peer evaluation, in a final reasoned opinion, which shall not be legally binding. 6. conducted and the reasoned opinion of the evaluator or the final reasoned opinion of the peer evaluator may be used as evidence before stakeholders, patent pools, public authorities, courts or arbitrators.Article 28 deleted checks The competence centre shall Essentiality checks shall not be The lack of an essentiality check The evaluator shall summarise the The result of the essentiality check

2023/10/31
Committee: JURI

Adrián VÁZQUEZ LÁZARA

Proposal for a regulation
Article 28 – title

~~General requirement for essentiality checks~~Technical conciliation procedure

2023/10/31
Committee: JURI

Adrián VÁZQUEZ LÁZARA

Proposal for a regulation
Article 28 a (new)

Article 28a 1. The competence centre shall set up and administer a technical conciliation procedure to support the parties in dealing with technical aspects typically covered during SEP licensing. 2. The competence centre shall appoint a technical conciliator from the roster of conciliators to mediate the procedure. 3. The initiation of the technical conciliation procedure shall be mandatory upon the request of an SME that is engaged in SEP licensing, either as a SEP holder or as a SEP implementer. 4. Upon initiation of the technical conciliation procedure, the parties shall execute a mutual Non-Disclosure Agreement, which shall be provided by the competence centre. 5. The parties shall submit their arguments and documents for the technical discussions. In accordance with customary industry practice, the SEP holder shall provide the other party and the technical conciliator a relevant sample of claim charts for the portfolio of SEP patent families for which a license is being offered 6. Where the SEP holder is an SME, the competence centre shall provide assistance for the technical evaluation and exercise of its relevant SEP families. 7. The parties shall be allowed to be assisted by external technical advisors during the procedure. 8. The technical conciliator shall propose and agree with the parties on the schedule, but the technical conciliation procedure shall not exceed a duration of 5 months. 9. The appointed technical conciliator shall mediate between the parties on the technical aspects with the aim to help facilitating the execution of a SEP license. 10. At the end of the technical conciliation procedure, the technical conciliator shall prepare a report establishing the key points of the procedure, the main elements brought by the parties and provide a recommendation. The report shall remain confidential pursuant to the mutual NDA signed by the parties, provided, however, that it may be utilized during the FRAND determination procedure of Title VI or, in the event the parties fail to agree on a SEP license during such determination, in legal proceeding related to the subject matter. 11. The technical conciliation procedure should be available as a separate procedure. However, upon request of one of the parties, the procedure could be combined with the FRAND determination procedure of Title VI. In the event both procedures are combined, the overall timeline for the merged procedure shall not exceed the 9 months duration stipulated in Article 37(1). 12. The technical conciliator procedure should be available for non-SMEs upon mutual agreement where the parties believe the procedure would be helpful to facilitate technical discussions.

2023/10/31
Committee: JURI

Adrián VÁZQUEZ LÁZARA

Proposal for a regulation
Article 29

~~[...]~~deleted

2023/10/31
Committee: JURI

Adrián VÁZQUEZ LÁZARA

Proposal for a regulation
Article 30

~~Observations by stakeholders 1. publication of the list of registered SEPs s~~Article 30 delected for sampling, any stakeholder may submit to the competence centre written observations concerning the essentiality of the selected SEPs. 2. paragraph (1) shall be communicated to the SEP holder who may comment on them within the time limit established by the competence centre. 3. provide the observations and the responses by the SEP holder to the evaluator following the expiry of the set time limits.Within 90 days following the The observations referred to in The competence centre shall

2023/10/31
Committee: JURI

Adrián VÁZQUEZ LÁZARA

Proposal for a regulation
Article 31

Examination of the essentiality of a 1. shall be conducted following procedure that ensures sufficient time, rigorousness and high-quality. 2. The evaluator may invite the SEP holder concerned to file observations, within a period to be fixed by the evaluator. 3. believe that the SEP may not be essential to the standard, the competence centre shall inform the SEP holder of any such reasons and specify a period within which the SEP holder may submit its observations, or submit an amended claim chart. 4. any information provided by the SEP holder. 5. reasoned opinion to the competence centre within 6 months from its appointment. The reasoned opinion shall include the name of the SEP holder and of the evaluator, the SEP subject to the essentiality check, the relevant standard, a summary of the examination procedure, the result of the essentiality check and the reasons on which that result is based. 6. The competence centre shall notify the reasoned opinion to the SEP holder.Article 31 deleted registered SEP The examination of essentiality Where an evaluator has reasons to The evaluator shall duly consider The evaluator shall issue his

2023/10/31
Committee: JURI

Adrián VÁZQUEZ LÁZARA

Proposal for a regulation
Article 32

~~1. informed the SEP holder pursuant to Article 31(3), the SEP holder may request peer evaluation before the expiry of the period to submit its observations pursuant to Article 31(3). 2. evaluation,~~Article 32 deleted Peer evaluation Where the competence centre shall appoint a peer evaluator. 3. consider all the information submitted by the SEP holder, the reasons of the initial evaluator why the SEP may not be essential to the standard and any amended claim chart or additional observations provided by the SEP holder. 4. confirmed the preliminary conclusions of the evaluator that the evaluated SEP may not be essential to the standard for which it was registered, the peer evaluator shall inform the competence centre and provide the reasons for this opinion. The competence centre shall inform the SEP holder and invite the SEP holder to submit its observations. 5. consider the observations of the SEP holder and issue a final reasoned opinion to the competence centre within 3 months from its appointment. The final reasoned opinion shall include the name of the SEP holder, of the evaluator and of the peer evaluator, the SEP subject to the essentiality check, the relevant standard, a summary of the examination and peer evaluation procedure, the preliminary conclusion of the evaluator, the result of the peer evaluation and the reasons on which that result is based. 6. the final reasoned opinion to the SEP holder. 7. shall serve to improve the essentiality check process and ensure consistency.s If the SEP holder requests a peer The peer evaluator shall duly In case the peer evaluation The peer evaluator shall duly The competence centre shall notify The results of the peer evaluation

2023/10/31
Committee: JURI

Adrián VÁZQUEZ LÁZARA

Proposal for a regulation
Article 33

Publication of the results of the 1. the result of the essentiality check or of the peer evaluation in the register and the reasoned opinion and final reasoned opinion in the database. The result of the essentiality check under this Regulation shall be valid for all SEPs from the same patent family. 2. publish in the register the percentage of sampled SEPs per SEP holder and per specific registered standard that passed successfully the essentiality test. 3. results contains an error attributable to the competence centre, tArticle 33 deleted essentiality checks The competence centre shall enter The competence centre shall ~~of its own motion or at t~~Whe re~~quest of the SEP holder registrant correct the error and publish the correction.~~ the publication of the

2023/10/31
Committee: JURI

Adrián VÁZQUEZ LÁZARA

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~~technical conciliation procedure in accordance with Article 328;

2023/10/31
Committee: JURI

Adrián VÁZQUEZ LÁZARA

Proposal for a regulation
Article 63 – paragraph 3 – point c

(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);, shall be divided equally by the parties that participated the procedure. If SMEs are involved, the competence centre shall consider offering the procedure for free or for a reduced fee for such SMEs.

2023/10/31
Committee: JURI