Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Recent developments in Korean antirust cases concerning FRAND-encumbered standard essential patents

  • Article
  • Published:
Jindal Global Law Review Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

So far, in Korea, there have been four antitrust cases concerning the “fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory” (FRAND) encumbered standard essential patents (SEPs) in the last six years: (1) the Seoul Central District Court’s decision in Samsung v. Apple (August 2012); (2) the Korean Fair Trade Commission (KFTC)’s consent decision on Microsoft’s acquisition of Nokia (August 2015); (3) the Seoul High Court’s decision in Qualcomm v. KFTC (August 2012) pending in the Supreme Court; and (4) the KFTC’s decision against Qualcomm (January 2017) pending in the Seoul High Court. This article provides an analyses of the four cases, and comments on the application of the Korean Monopoly and Fair Trade Act towards FRAND-encumbered SEPs.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. 2011 Gahap39552 decision (Aug. 24, 2012).

  2. The court neither addressed whether the FRAND royalty should be based on the incremental value that the patented invention adds to the end product, nor provided methodologies to estimate the FRAND rate.

  3. 2002 Du8023 decision (Nov. 22, 2007). In this case, the Supreme Court reversed and remanded the Seoul High Court’s decision that had affirmed the KFTC’s decision that POSCO (Korean steel manufacturer)’s refusal to sell its hot coil to HYSCO (Korean steel manufacturer) constituted abuse of dominance.

  4. KFTC No. 2015-316 decision (Aug. 24, 2015).

  5. 2000 Nu3921 decision (Jun. 19, 2013).

  6. It is one type of “undue hindrance of other undertaking’s business” under the MRA Presidential Decree and the KFTC’s Guideline of Abuse of Dominant Position.

  7. See, e.g., Tomra Systems ASA and Others v European Commission, Case C–549/10 P (19 April 2012). In this case, the European Court of Justice opined that loyalty rebates at issue constituted abuse of dominance by reason of exclusive effects.

  8. Tbraod v. KFTC, Supreme Court 2007 Du25183 decision (Dec. 11, 2008); KFTC v. SK Telecom, Supreme Court 2008 Du1832 decision (Oct.13, 2011); KFTC v. NHN (Naver), Supreme Court 2009 Du20366 decision (Nov. 13, 2014).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Law, Pusan National University, Busan, Korea

    Jinyul Ju

Authors
  1. Jinyul Ju
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jinyul Ju.

Additional information

Jinyul Ju—Professor.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ju, J. Recent developments in Korean antirust cases concerning FRAND-encumbered standard essential patents. Jindal Global Law Review 8, 221–229 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s41020-017-0051-1

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s41020-017-0051-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation