{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.022969647251845776, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.256410256410256, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Anti-Suit Injunctions, FRAND Policies and the Conflict between Overlapping Jurisdictions


 Numerous courts worldwide consider themselves competent to determine the FRAND compliance of global SEP license agreements and to set worldwide FRAND rates. A court deciding a FRAND case involving a global FRAND rate may issue an injunction which prohibits the filing or enforcement of an action in another jurisdiction (anti-suit injunction, hereinafter ‘ASI’). The parties litigating in the courts of another country may request this court to enjoin the filing or execution of the ASI – (anti-anti-suit injunction, hereinafter ‘AASI’). This article argues that the extraterritorial effects of both ASIs and AASIs may unduly impede court proceedings. However, ASIs and AASIs may in certain cases legitimately protect the interests that sovereign states have in undisturbed court proceedings. Self-restraint should be exercised because each ASI/AASI contains the risk of escalation. The article gives guidelines as to under which conditions ASIs/AASIs may be issued and accepted by the courts. It also aims to raise awareness among policymakers so that internationally binding rules which ease the conflicts may be implemented.