Competition, IP rights and Technology Transfer Block Exemption

In order to reward and encourage investment and innovation, intellectual property law grants owners of intangible property exclusive exploitation rights. Intellectual property right (IPR) holders therefore have, in principle, the right to control access to (and charge others for use of) their IPRs as well as pursue enforcement of these rights through the courts where otherwise unauthorised use has occurred.

At the same time, exercising such rights may run up against competition law requirements which, broadly speaking, aim to promote open markets and curtail abuse of market power—and, in the EU context, ensure the integration and integrity of the Single Market by removing impediments to cross border trade.

This sub-topic addresses the interface between IPRs and EU competition law and highlights some of the tensions that may arise.

Competition issues

Technology licensing is generally seen as pro-competitive activity—one that leads to increased efficiencies through strengthened incentives to innovate and increased engagement in research and development initiatives (while reducing duplication in such activities). In addition, technology licensing encourages the diffusion of technology and know-how (ie increasing the number of users and suppliers)

To view the latest version of this document and thousands of others like it, sign-in with LexisNexis or register for a free trial.

TAKE A FREE TRIAL

Latest Competition News

UK Competition law—daily round-up (20/12/2024)

A round-up of UK competition law developments, including (amongst other things) the CMA’s decision that the Synopsys/Ansys merger meets the test for reference to phase 2.

High Court confirms broad government discretion in UK national security reviews

Competition analysis: In this judgment, the High Court issued its first ever ruling on a challenge to an unwinding order imposed by the UK government under the National Security and Investment Act 2021 (NSIA 2021). In a clear victory for the government, the court confirmed the broad discretion of the Secretary of State to determine the appropriate remedy for resolving national security concerns arising from a problematic transaction, up to and including forced divestment of the acquirer’s shareholding in a qualifying entity, as well confirming that the overall process followed by the Government in such cases is fair and proportionate. The judgment is also notable for the insights that it provides into the process followed by Government officials and ministers for in-depth reviews under the NSIA 2021, with the level of detail going well beyond what has been disclosed in the Government’s own guidance to date. Written by Becket McGrath, partner at Euclid Law Ltd.

Competition weekly highlights—19 December 2024

This week's edition of Competition weekly highlights includes, from a UK perspective: (1) the latest NSI Act 2021 developments, (2) the DCMS’ decision to extend its deadline for responses to its consultation on updating the media mergers regime, and (3) the CMA grants permission for collective action against Google over alleged market abuse. This week’s highlights also includes, from an EU perspective: (1) the General Court’s judgment dismissing further actions against Commission’s decision finding that a scheme designed to promote regional development in Maderia was unlawful State aid.

UK Competition law—daily round-up (19/12/2024)

A round-up of UK competition law developments, including (amongst other things) (1) the CMA publishes an updated version of its Guidance on investigation procedures under the CA 1998 cases following changes brought by the DMCCA, (2) the CMA publishes final guidance on the digital markets competition regime, as well a separate guidance on the merger reporting requirements for SMS firms, (3) the CMA publishes an updated statement of policy concerning its approach to imposing administrative penalties for failure to comply with requirements imposed under its investigatory and remedies powers, (4) the CMA publishes updated guidance on its transparency and disclosure statement, including new overseas investigative assistance, (5) the CMA publishes guidance on its information gathering powers relating to road fuel monitoring, (6) the CMA publishes a memorandum of understanding (MoU) between the CMA, the Bank of England and the PRA regarding the Digital Markets Regime, (7) the CMA publishes a MoU between the CMA and Ofcom regarding the Digital Markets Regime, (8) the CMA publishes a MoU between the CMA and ICO regarding the Digital Markets Regime, (9) the CMA publishes a report concerning its 10-year review of concurrency arrangements, and (10) the CAT’s judgment dismissing a claim regarding excessive pricing brought against BT in the first opt-out competition collective action to go to trial.