When the Paris Court of Appeal sets a license rate:
In a decision rendered on October 16, the Court of Appeal analysed whether Peugeot Motocycles should be subject to recall and injunction measures for alleged patent infringement of Piaggio's anti-tilting system patent. Peugeot argued that such measures were disproportionate, as their scooter Metropolis had limited sales impact on Piaggio's market share and the contested patent was nearing expiration on February 1, 2025. Peugeot also suggested that monetary compensation would suffice to address any damages.
Piaggio maintained that injunction and recall were essential to protect its rights, emphasizing the significant role of the infringing part in its scooter’s functionality and noting the decade-long history of infringement.
Instead, the court ordered financial compensation for Piaggio to remedy the infringement. The court ultimately found the recall and injunction requests disproportionate, citing the nearing expiration of the patent, limited market effect, potential hardship on third parties and the fact that Piaggio had already granted licence rights on the same patent to another competitor.
As Thierry Mollet-Vieville, whom I thank, recently pointed out to me, this type of reasoning is transposable to FRAND cases, especially since the patent holder has committed to granting a license. The method chosen by the court to calculate the compensatory royalty for the future use of the Piaggio patent is specific to this case and cannot be transposed as is to FRAND cases, but what must be remembered from this case is that there is nothing in French law to prevent a French judge from setting a license royalty.
vision is an attitude
3wUnfassbar, aber scheinbar der einzige Weg raus aus der deutschen Bürokratie-Falle?! Glückwunsch!