Standard Essential Patents, FRAND Obligations & Abuse of Dominance: A Comparative Study with Special Reference to India
##semicolon##
https://doi.org/10.67275/qew7y489##semicolon##
SEPs##common.commaListSeparator## FRAND commitments##common.commaListSeparator## competition–patent interface##common.commaListSeparator## abuse of dominance##common.commaListSeparator## CCI jurisdiction##common.commaListSeparator## patent hold-up##common.commaListSeparator## Digital Competition Billसार
Standard Essential Patents sit at a fault line between exclusivity and market discipline. Patent law grants proprietors the right to exclude; competition law restrains the abuse of that right when it is leveraged through industry standards. Standard-Setting Organisations seek to bridge the divide by extracting FRAND licensing promises, yet the deliberate openness of those promises has fuelled two decades of high-stakes litigation across jurisdictions. Landmark contests—from Huawei v ZTE and Unwired Planet v Huawei to FTC v Qualcomm and India’s twelveyear Ericsson saga that ended only in September 2025—illustrate how unresolved questions of hold-up, hold-out and jurisdictional boundary continue to shape outcomes. This paper offers a comparative doctrinal mapping of SEPFRAND and abuse-of-dominance law in the European Union, the United States, the United Kingdom, China and India, with India as the central case study. It follows the arc of Indian jurisprudence from the
##submission.citations##
