19. The relationship between intellectual property rights and competition law

2021 ◽  
pp. 807-851
Author(s):  
Richard Whish ◽  
David Bailey
Keyword(s):  
Technology Transfer ◽  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Property Rights ◽  
Intellectual Property Rights ◽  
Competition Law ◽  
Controversial Subject ◽  
General Terms ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
Block Exemption ◽  
The Way

This chapter considers the relationship between intellectual property rights and competition law. After a brief introduction, it deals in general terms with the application of Article 101 to licences of intellectual property rights. The chapter proceeds to discuss the provisions of Regulation 316/2014, the block exemption for technology transfer agreements. It also considers the application of Article 101 to various other agreements concerning intellectual property rights such as technology pools and settlements of litigation. This is followed by a section on the application of Article 102 to the way in which dominant undertakings exercise their intellectual property rights, including an examination of the controversial subject of refusals to license intellectual property rights which are sometimes found to be abusive. The chapter concludes with a look at the position in UK competition law.

19. The relationship between intellectual property rights and competition law

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard Whish ◽  
David Bailey
Keyword(s):  
Technology Transfer ◽  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Property Rights ◽  
Intellectual Property Rights ◽  
Competition Law ◽  
Controversial Subject ◽  
General Terms ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
Block Exemption ◽  
The Way

This chapter considers the relationship between intellectual property rights and competition law. After a brief introduction, it deals in general terms with the application of Article 101 to licences of intellectual property rights. The chapter proceeds to discuss the provisions of Regulation 316/2014, the block exemption for technology transfer agreements. It also considers the application of Article 101 to various other agreements concerning intellectual property rights such as technology pools and settlements of litigation. This is followed by a section on the application of Article 102 to the way in which dominant undertakings exercise their intellectual property rights, including an examination of the controversial subject of refusals to license intellectual property rights which are sometimes found to be abusive. The chapter concludes with a look at the position in UK competition law.

22. Competition law and intellectual property

2019 ◽  
pp. 531-555
Author(s):  
Sandra Marco Colino
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Property Rights ◽  
Intellectual Property Rights ◽  
Competition Law ◽  
Third Parties ◽  
Patent Holder ◽  
Dominant Position ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
Article 102 Tfeu

This chapter discusses the relationship between competition law and intellectual property rights. Competition law may limit the ability to exercise intellectual property rights. Article 101 TFEU and Chapter I Prohibition may apply to agreements to license intellectual property, as well as pay-for-delay settlements between a patent holder and potential competitors. Article 102 TFEU and Chapter II Prohibition may apply to the use of intellectual property rights by a dominant undertaking, particularly when the protected asset is essential to third parties. The existence of intellectual property rights does not automatically confer a dominant position — the product or service may still face competition.

The Interface of EC Competition Law and Intellectual Property Rights: the Essential and the Creative

2005 ◽  
Vol 7 ◽  
pp. 189-210
Author(s):  
Imelda Maher
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Property Rights ◽  
Intellectual Property Rights ◽  
Competition Law ◽  
Compulsory Licensing ◽  
Freedom Of Contract ◽  
Starting Position ◽  
European Court ◽  
Ec Competition Law ◽  
The Relationship

This article uses the issue of compulsory licensing of copyright to explore the relationship between intellectual property law (specifically copyright law) and competition law in the EU. It takes as its starting position the proposition that competition law is the ultimate restraint on the monopoly potential of intellectual property with intellectual property rights (IPR) located in competition law. However, it argues that it is too simplistic to cast the approach of the European Court of Justice (ECJ) in the IMS case purely as one of competition law being allowed to trump copyright. Instead, it sees the judgment as an example of doctrinal compromise for both legal subsystems with competition law placing limits on the invocation of copyright as the basis for a refusal to deal, while suggesting a remedy in the form of compulsory licensing which runs contrary to its conceptual roots in private law and notions of freedom of contract.

The Interface of EC Competition Law and Intellectual Property Rights: the Essential and the Creative

2005 ◽  
Vol 7 ◽  
pp. 189-210
Author(s):  
Imelda Maher
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Property Rights ◽  
Intellectual Property Rights ◽  
Competition Law ◽  
Compulsory Licensing ◽  
Freedom Of Contract ◽  
Starting Position ◽  
European Court ◽  
Ec Competition Law ◽  
The Relationship

This article uses the issue of compulsory licensing of copyright to explore the relationship between intellectual property law (specifically copyright law) and competition law in the EU. It takes as its starting position the proposition that competition law is the ultimate restraint on the monopoly potential of intellectual property with intellectual property rights (IPR) located in competition law. However, it argues that it is too simplistic to cast the approach of the European Court of Justice (ECJ) in the IMS case purely as one of competition law being allowed to trump copyright. Instead, it sees the judgment as an example of doctrinal compromise for both legal subsystems with competition law placing limits on the invocation of copyright as the basis for a refusal to deal, while suggesting a remedy in the form of compulsory licensing which runs contrary to its conceptual roots in private law and notions of freedom of contract.

scholarly journals IPR Law Protection and Enforcement and the Effect on Horizontal Productivity Spillovers from Inward FDI to Domestic Firms: A Meta-analysis

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Danai Christopoulou ◽  
Nikolaos Papageorgiadis ◽  
Chengang Wang ◽  
Georgios Magkonis
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Property Rights ◽  
Intellectual Property Rights ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Host Countries ◽  
Productivity Spillovers ◽  
Domestic Firms ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
Positive Effect

AbstractWe study the role of the strength of Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) law protection and enforcement in influencing horizontal productivity spillovers from inward FDI to domestic firms in host countries. While most WTO countries adopted strong IPR legislation due to exogenous pressure resulting from the signing of the Trade-Related Aspects of IPR (TRIPS) agreement, public IPR enforcement strength continues to vary significantly between countries. We meta-analyse 49 studies and find that public IPR enforcement strength has a direct positive effect on horizontal productivity spillovers from inward FDI to domestic firms and a negative moderating effect on the relationship between IPR law protection strength and horizontal productivity spillovers from inward FDI to domestic firms.

Intellectual Property: Theory, Privilege, and Pragmatism

2003 ◽  
Vol 16 (2) ◽  
pp. 191-216 ◽  
Author(s):  
Adam D. Moore
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Property Rights ◽  
Intellectual Property Rights ◽  
Trade Secret ◽  
Social Constructions ◽  
Property Theory ◽  
General Terms ◽  
Anglo American ◽  
Definition Of

In the most general terms, this article focuses on the tension between competing justifications of intellectual property. Section I examines the nature and definition of economic pragmatism and argues that, while economic pragmatism comes in many flavors, each is either unstable or self-defeating. Section II advances the view that Anglo-American systems of intellectual property have both theoretical and pragmatic features. In Section III a sketch of a theory is offered--a theory that may limit applications of economic pragmatism and provide the foundation for copyright, patent, and trade secret institutions. To be justified--to warrant coercion on a worldwide scale--systems of intellectual property should be grounded in theory. Intellectual property rights are, in essence, no different than our rights to life, liberty, and tangible property. Intellectual property rights are neither pure social constructions nor bargains without foundations.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document