Blog Post

Huawei vs ZTE judgement: a welcome decision?

Today the European Court of Justice (ECJ) will rule on a dispute between Chinese tech companies Huawei and ZTE regarding a patent “essential” to the “Long Term Evolution” (LTE) wireless broadband technology standard. 

By: and Date: July 15, 2015 Topic: Innovation & Competition Policy

The legal dispute originates in the Düsseldorf District Court (Landgericht Düsseldorf), where Huawei sought an injunction against ZTE after attempts between the two companies to find an agreement on fair, reasonable, non-discriminatory (FRAND) terms were unsuccessful. This ruling is highly anticipated since it is likely to bring some clarity over what are to be considered in Europe anticompetitive conducts in relation to Standard-Essential Patents (SEPs), an area where several high-profile cases (e.g. Samsung and Google/Motorola Mobility) have been recently investigated by the European Commission.

Standards foster economic development. They reduce transaction and production costs; they increase efficiencies, limit asymmetric information between producers and consumers, make it more viable to invest in innovation and reduce the level of uncertainty about the outcome of R&D investment. Standards ensure network interoperability: to be sure, when you pick up your mobile phone and call a friend, you are happy that your devices can easily interconnect through the same network technology. But standards are tricky matters for antitrust authorities. Once competing technologies are eliminated in favour of the selected technology, the owners of patents essential to that standard might try to extract monopolistic rents from users of the technology. To avoid this, standard-setting organisations usually require patent owners to commit to charge a FRAND price once the standard has been adopted (see Mariniello 2013). This is what the European Telecom Standardisation Institute did when the 4G LTE standard was adopted.

The main question the ECJ judgement is supposed to provide a reply to is under which conditions a SEP-holder seeking an injunction is abusing its (presumed) dominant position. The Advocate General’s opinion published last November, while non-binding, is likely to provide a preview of the content of the ECJ ruling. In the Advocate General’s opinion, a SEP-holder seeking an injunction is not breaking its FRAND commitment and abusing its dominant position if, before seeking the injunction:

i.         it notified the alleged infringer that it was infringing some of its SEPs and

ii.         it engaged in negotiations by presenting the alleged infringer with a written offer on FRAND terms specifying all terms and conditions that are part of a normal licensing contract in the sector, including the royalty rate to be applied and the way it is calculated.

In turn, a prospective licensee must respond to that offer in a diligent and serious manner in order not to be considered “unwilling” to reach an agreement. If the prospective licensee does not accept the SEP’s offer, it must promptly come up with a reasonable counterproposal. Even in cases in which an agreement between the two parties could not be ultimately found, the alleged infringer’s behaviour should still be considered willing to reach an agreement if it offers to have the FRAND terms of the licensing contract determined by a Court or an arbitration tribunal. Finally, the prospective licensee conduct should not be considered as dilatory or not serious if it reserves the right to challenge the validity of the patent in court. This is good, as there is a public interest in having “bad” patents (i.e. patents which should not have been issued in the first place) invalidated and prospective licensee should not be forced to give up this right in order to have access to technology the licensor has promised to provide under FRAND terms. If the alleged infringer does not follow these steps and its conduct can be characterised as purely tactical, dilatory or not serious, the request for an injunction by a SEP-holder does not constitute an abuse of dominant position, according to the Advocate General.

In practice, for the Advocate General both the SEP holder (licensor) and the alleged infringer (prospective licensee) should comply with their duty of good will and engage in a constructive negotiation in order to achieve a mutually satisfactory solution. The framework proposed by the Advocate General therefore balances the interests of prospective licensees, which made standard-specific investments relying on the licensors’ promise of giving access to the technology on “fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory” terms and may see these investments “held up” by the SEP-holder, and the ones of licensors whose already-sunk own R&D investments could be “reverse held up” by a “tactical” licensee. In so doing, this opinion is welcome.

The opinion also briefly discusses whether holding a SEP should immediately imply a dominant position, arguing that while the essential nature of the patent is likely to make dealing with a SEP-holder indispensable for any prospective licensees, this presumption should be rebuttable if sufficient evidence of the contrary is provided.[1] Once again the opinion seems to strike the right balance between preserving the rights of patent holders while protecting potentially locked-in licensees.

[1]                 The right time when to evaluate the indispensability, and therefore whether the SEP-holder is to be considered dominant, is the time when the agreement was sought. It would be mistaken to determine that a SEP-holder was not dominant because ex-post the patent is discovered to be invalid or not essential to the standard, since the prospective licensee, at the time of the negotiation might have been unable to foresee such an occurrence and would have likely negotiated under the presumption that the patent was both valid and essential.

Republishing and referencing

Bruegel considers itself a public good and takes no institutional standpoint. Anyone is free to republish and/or quote this post without prior consent. Please provide a full reference, clearly stating Bruegel and the relevant author as the source, and include a prominent hyperlink to the original post.

Read about event More on this topic

Upcoming Event


Academic lecture: International technology competition

Bruegel Annual Meetings, Day 3 - On the final day of the Annual Meetings, our Director Guntram Wolf sits with Keyu Jin to discuss international competition policy.

Speakers: Keyu Jin, J. Scott Marcus and Guntram B. Wolff Topic: Innovation & Competition Policy Location: Palais des Académies, Rue Ducale 1, Brussels
Read article Download PDF More on this topic

Working Paper

Stability of collusion and quality differentiation: a Nash bargaining approach

How do incentives to collude depend on how asymmetric firms are? For low levels of differentiation, an increase in quality difference makes collusion less stable. The opposite holds for high levels of differentiation.

By: Thanos Athanasopoulos, Burak Dindaroglu and Georgios Petropoulos Topic: Innovation & Competition Policy Date: June 15, 2021
Read article More on this topic More by this author



New kid in the playground: China's antitrust push

How is China’s antitrust push being weaponised to counter western sanctions?

By: The Sound of Economics Topic: Global Economics & Governance Date: May 12, 2021
Read article Download PDF More on this topic More by this author

Working Paper

Research and innovation policies and productivity growth

Can research and innovation policies power growth? The answer currently can only be a timid yes. Too little is known of what drives the actual effects of R&I policies.

By: Reinhilde Veugelers Topic: Innovation & Competition Policy Date: May 10, 2021
Read about event More on this topic

Past Event

Past Event

Declining competition: a transatlantic challenge

Join us for a discussion of transatlantic competition with Kristalina Georgieva, Margrethe Vestager and Amy Klobuchar among others.

Speakers: Romain Duval, Kristalina Georgieva, Greg Ip, Amy Klobuchar, Nancy Rose, Tommaso Valletti, Margrethe Vestager, David Wessel and Guntram B. Wolff Topic: Innovation & Competition Policy Location: Bruegel, Rue de la Charité 33, 1210 Brussels Date: March 15, 2021
Read article More on this topic

Blog Post

Europe is losing competitiveness in global value chains while China surges

The European Union owes much of its economic weight to its regional value chain and integration into the global value chain. But the EU’s global value chain role is shrinking, and while EU trade integration with China is increasing, it is mainly to China’s benefit, undermining the EU’s external competitiveness.

By: Alicia García-Herrero and David Martínez Turégano Topic: Global Economics & Governance Date: November 27, 2020
Read about event More on this topic

Past Event

Past Event

Digital Platforms, Regulation and Competition: What's next for Europe?

Will the new rules of the internet go far enough for consumers and creators? Should we regulate platforms or will a code of conduct suffice?

Speakers: Diane Coyle, Jorge Padilla, Georgios Petropoulos and Alex A. Saliba Topic: Innovation & Competition Policy Location: Bruegel, Rue de la Charité 33, 1210 Brussels Date: November 26, 2020
Read article Download PDF More on this topic

Working Paper

Digital platforms and antitrust

The market power of online platforms raises concerns that they may engage in anti-competitive practices, but traditional (ex-post) antitrust intervention will be less effective in markets driven by network effects unless it is combined with a proper (ex-ante) regulatory framework. Intervention should not reduce value creation, should focus on fair sharing of value, and should eliminate incentives for anti-competitive strategies.

By: Geoffrey Parker, Georgios Petropoulos and Marshall Van Alstyne Topic: Innovation & Competition Policy Date: November 23, 2020
Read about event More on this topic

Past Event

Past Event

How to keep a competitive environment while engaging with non market economies?

How can we ensure fair competition between European firms and Chinese state-backed players?

Speakers: Julia Anderson, Helge Berger, Michiel Boots, Alicia García-Herrero, Carles Esteva Mosso, Frédéric Jenny, Georgios Petropoulos, Cian Ruane, Hylke Vandenbussche and Guntram B. Wolff Topic: Innovation & Competition Policy Location: Bruegel, Rue de la Charité 33, 1210 Brussels Date: November 19, 2020
Read article More on this topic More by this author

Blog Post

Not all foreign investment is welcome in Europe

A new plan to tackle foreign subsidies would empower the European Commission to investigate foreign investments in the European Union, with Chinese investment particularly in the spotlight. This increased scrutiny could deter some investors. Overall however, fairer competition is worth some lost opportunities.

By: Julia Anderson Topic: Global Economics & Governance Date: November 10, 2020
Read about event More on this topic

Past Event

Past Event

The Sound of Economics Live - The Brussels effect: How the European Union rules the world

This was a live recording of an episode of the Sound of Economics, Bruegel's podcast series. The discussion centered around the book of Anu Bradford, The Brussels Effect.

Speakers: Anu Bradford, Ashoka Mody, Giuseppe Porcaro and Guntram B. Wolff Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance Location: Bruegel, Rue de la Charité 33, 1210 Brussels Date: March 3, 2020
Read article More by this author


Europe may be the world’s AI referee, but referees don’t win

The EU needs to invest in homegrown technology.

By: Guntram B. Wolff Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance, Innovation & Competition Policy Date: February 19, 2020
Load more posts