Huawei v ZTE should have been treated as a refusal to contract—to grant SEP licences—and not as a new category of abuse

In Huawei v. ZTE, the fact of bringing infringement actions by SEP holders was treated as a novel category of abuse, instead of as an implicit refusal to grant licenses that would have been more consistent with the classic competition test used to determine if the exclusionary abuse caused competition harm. Besides, it would have enabled to impose compulsory licenses as a remedy, making parties entered into licensing agreements possible.