{"title":"KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS公司vs TINNO移动技术公司","authors":"","doi":"10.1093/rpc/rcac024","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n H1 Patents—European patents—Standards essential patents—Infringement proceedings—FRAND issues—Co-pending proceedings in France—Application to stay the English proceedings—Whether English court first seised—Whether related actions—Whether risk of irreconcilable judgments—Relevance of previous jurisdictional challenge under CPR Part 11—Declaratory relief—Interim damages applications—Disclosure in relation to damages claim","PeriodicalId":336842,"journal":{"name":"Reports of Patent, Design and Trade Mark Cases","volume":"7 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS NV v TINNO MOBILE TECHNOLOGY CORP\",\"authors\":\"\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/rpc/rcac024\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\n H1 Patents—European patents—Standards essential patents—Infringement proceedings—FRAND issues—Co-pending proceedings in France—Application to stay the English proceedings—Whether English court first seised—Whether related actions—Whether risk of irreconcilable judgments—Relevance of previous jurisdictional challenge under CPR Part 11—Declaratory relief—Interim damages applications—Disclosure in relation to damages claim\",\"PeriodicalId\":336842,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Reports of Patent, Design and Trade Mark Cases\",\"volume\":\"7 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-08-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Reports of Patent, Design and Trade Mark Cases\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/rpc/rcac024\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Reports of Patent, Design and Trade Mark Cases","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/rpc/rcac024","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS NV v TINNO MOBILE TECHNOLOGY CORP
H1 Patents—European patents—Standards essential patents—Infringement proceedings—FRAND issues—Co-pending proceedings in France—Application to stay the English proceedings—Whether English court first seised—Whether related actions—Whether risk of irreconcilable judgments—Relevance of previous jurisdictional challenge under CPR Part 11—Declaratory relief—Interim damages applications—Disclosure in relation to damages claim