EU competition law and IP rights

Introductory materials

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.

Practice Note: EU Competition law and intellectual property considers the extent to which competition law applies to the following questions that have arisen in relation to the ownership and protection of IPRs:

  1. What competition law considerations apply to patenting practices such as the decision to seek (or not seek) IPR protection and an IPR owner’s conduct before the regulatory authorities?

  2. What competition law rules apply to licensing of IPRs?

  3. When

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

Powered by Lexis+®
Latest EU Law News

Automated decision-making and DSARs: right to access means a right to explainability (CK v Magistrat Der Stadt Wiendun & Bradstreet Austria GMBH)

Information Law analysis: The Court of Justice provided several clarifications around the scope of data subject access requests (DSARs) in the context of automated decision-making. The court held the determining factor for whether information constitutes ‘meaningful information about the logic involved’ under Article 15(1)(h) of the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation, Regulation (EU) 2016/679 (EU GDPR) is whether the information enables the data subject to understand the logic involved in automated decision-making involving their personal data. The court also held disclosure by controllers should be underpinned by the principles of transparency, which requires information to be clear, accessible and intelligible, both in terms of content and form, from the perspective of data subjects. In the context of automated decision-making this doesn’t necessarily mean providing the exact algorithm, if it doesn’t help the data subject’s understanding of the ‘how’. The court confirmed DSARs do not mandate the disclosure of trade secrets, but this can only be decided by the relevant supervisory authority or competent court, after assessing all relevant information provided to them by a controller. The protection of trade secrets cannot be used as a blanket excuse by businesses to withhold certain information from individuals making a request under Article 15(1)(h) of the EU GDPR. Written by Marija Nonkovic, associate at Kemp IT Law LLP.

View EU Law by content type :

Popular documents