Error! Reference source not found.

Action brought on 25 March 2010 - Hynix Semiconductor v Commission

(Case T-148/10)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Hynix Semiconductor, Inc. (Icheon-si, Korea) (represented by: A. Woodgate and O. Heinisch, Solicitors)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

annul the Commission Decision in Case COMP/38.636 - Rambus, dated 9 December 2009;

order the Commission to pay the costs;

grant such other relief as the Court considers appropriate.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In the present case, the applicant seeks the annulment of the Commission Decision adopted in the framework of Case COMP/38.636 - Rambus relating to a proceeding under Article 102 TFUE and Article 54 EEA, concerning the claiming of potentially abusive royalties for the use of certain patents for "Dynamic Random Access Memory" (DRAM). By the contested decision the Commission made binding upon Rambus certain commitments in accordance with Article 9 of the Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003¹ and decided that there were no longer grounds for action. The applicant is the competitor of Rambus and it lodged a complaint for the initiation of proceedings against it.

In support of its claims, the applicant puts forward three pleas in law.

First, the applicant argues that the Commission violated Article 9 of Regulation 1/2003 by choosing the procedure set out in this article where its concerns related to a serious violation of Article 102 TFUE to the extent that it intended to impose a fine. Further, it claims that there were no procedural savings in applying Article 9. In the applicant's opinion, the commitments made biding by the Commission were manifestly inappropriate given the facts of the infringement in stake and it submits therefore that the Commission violated Article 9 of Regulation 1/2003, Article 102 TFUE and principle of sound (impartial) administration by accepting Rambus commitments. The applicant further submits that by applying incorrect proportionality test without applying the conditions set out in Article 9 itself and by misstating certain concerns and making erroneous conclusions as to whether the commitments deal with its concerns, the Commission erred in reaching the conclusion that there are no longer grounds for action. Furthermore, the applicant claims that the Commission failed to give reasons as to the appropriateness and adequacy of the commitments and therefore committed a serious error of assessment.

Second, the applicant argues that the Commission misused its powers under Article 9 of Regulation 1/2003.

Third, it claims that the Commission committed procedural errors when adopting the contested decision by not using its powers under Regulation 1/2003 and not further investigating the question of remedy adequately.

.

____________

¹ - Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty, OJ 2003 L 1, p. 1