Skip to main content

LUP Student Papers

LUND UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES

Restricting the Use of an Intellectual Property Right – The Cross-Atlantic View on Compulsory Licensing

Leffler Olsson, Linda LU (2013) LAGF03 20132
Faculty of Law
Department of Law
Abstract (Swedish)
En immaterialrätt ger en upphovsman en exklusiv rätt att utnyttja sin uppfinning. Syftet är att skapa incitament för företag att förbättra befintliga produkter eller att skapa helt nya produkter. En sådan rättighet innebär emellertid inte att upphovsmannen åtnjuter ett totalt skydd att ensam få utnyttja sin exklusiva rättighet och utövandet kan i vissa fall anses stå i strid med konkurrensrättslig lagstiftning. Följaktligen kan konkurrensrätten innebära en begränsning av en beviljad intellektuell rättighet. Relationen mellan immaterialrätt och konkurrensrätt aktualiserar, å ena sidan, nödvändigheten av att bevara incitament for upphovsmän att fortsätta utveckla nya produkter, å andra sidan, betydelsen av fri konkurrens, vilken kan... (More)
En immaterialrätt ger en upphovsman en exklusiv rätt att utnyttja sin uppfinning. Syftet är att skapa incitament för företag att förbättra befintliga produkter eller att skapa helt nya produkter. En sådan rättighet innebär emellertid inte att upphovsmannen åtnjuter ett totalt skydd att ensam få utnyttja sin exklusiva rättighet och utövandet kan i vissa fall anses stå i strid med konkurrensrättslig lagstiftning. Följaktligen kan konkurrensrätten innebära en begränsning av en beviljad intellektuell rättighet. Relationen mellan immaterialrätt och konkurrensrätt aktualiserar, å ena sidan, nödvändigheten av att bevara incitament for upphovsmän att fortsätta utveckla nya produkter, å andra sidan, betydelsen av fri konkurrens, vilken kan begränsas av ett utövande av en immaterialrätt. Både EU och USA erkänner immaterialrätter som ett viktigt incitament för innovation och investering och ett gemensamt syfte för europeisk och amerikansk konkurrensrätt är att säkerställa konsumenters välfärd. Även om tvångslicensering skulle kunna innebära ett orimligt intrång i en immaterialrätt förvärvad av ett företag, har både europeisk och amerikansk praxis konstaterat situationer där ett företag har blivit tvunget att licensera sina immaterialrätter. Vidare förutsätter EU-rätten som utgångspunkt att ett missbruk av en dominerande ställning strider mot konkurrensrätten, oavsett eventuella postiva effekterna av ett sådant agerande. Till detta finns möjligheter att tillåta agerandet, antingen genom blockundantagsregler eller genom att rättfärdiga agerandet enligt Artikel 101.3 FEUF. Sammanfattningsvis, har de båda lagstiftningarna kommit att utvecklas i två olika riktningar där EU-domstolens praxis antyder ett mer formellt synsätt i jämförelse med USA:s högsta domstol som snarare använder sig av ett “Rule of Reason-test”. (Less)
Abstract
Intellectual Property Rights gives an inventor an exclusive right of exploitation and its objective is to create an incentive for companies to improve existing products or develop entirely new products. However, even if a firm is granted an IPR there is a possibility, that while enjoying them, the use may be in conflict with competition law. Accordingly, competition law may limit the scope of an IPR, working as a “second tier”. The interface between the two systems of law actualizes on the one hand, the necessity to preserve the incentive for innovators to develop new products; on the other hand, it actualizes the importance of free competition, which may be restricted by the use of an IPR. Both EU and US law acknowledge IPRs as an... (More)
Intellectual Property Rights gives an inventor an exclusive right of exploitation and its objective is to create an incentive for companies to improve existing products or develop entirely new products. However, even if a firm is granted an IPR there is a possibility, that while enjoying them, the use may be in conflict with competition law. Accordingly, competition law may limit the scope of an IPR, working as a “second tier”. The interface between the two systems of law actualizes on the one hand, the necessity to preserve the incentive for innovators to develop new products; on the other hand, it actualizes the importance of free competition, which may be restricted by the use of an IPR. Both EU and US law acknowledge IPRs as an important incentive for investment and innovation and a common objective for EU and US competition law is to achieve consumer welfare. Nonetheless, the EU approach also has to take in consideration the realization of an internal market, which is an objective not shared with the US. Although compulsory licensing of an IPR could amount to excessive interference with a firm’s proprietary rights, both the Supreme Court and the CJEU have found situations, in which a firm has been compelled to license its IPR and where the refusal to license has been seen as an abusive conduct in contrast with competition law. Additionally, EU law presumes that an abusive conduct is in contrast with competition law, with possibilities to exempt or justify such conduct either under block exemption regulations or Article 101.3 TFEU; US law instead distinguishes between conduct either prohibited per se or treated under the rule of reason and seeing to whether the restraint is reasonably necessary to achieve procompetitive benefits that outweigh anticompetitive effects. In conclusion, the approach of the two systems of law differ, where the CJEU has went with a more formalistic approach rather than the rule of reason applied by the Supreme Court. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
Leffler Olsson, Linda LU
supervisor
organization
course
LAGF03 20132
year
type
M2 - Bachelor Degree
subject
keywords
Intellectual Property Rights, Competition law
language
English
id
4228788
date added to LUP
2014-01-28 17:36:12
date last changed
2014-01-28 17:36:12
@misc{4228788,
  abstract     = {Intellectual Property Rights gives an inventor an exclusive right of exploitation and its objective is to create an incentive for companies to improve existing products or develop entirely new products. However, even if a firm is granted an IPR there is a possibility, that while enjoying them, the use may be in conflict with competition law. Accordingly, competition law may limit the scope of an IPR, working as a “second tier”. The interface between the two systems of law actualizes on the one hand, the necessity to preserve the incentive for innovators to develop new products; on the other hand, it actualizes the importance of free competition, which may be restricted by the use of an IPR. Both EU and US law acknowledge IPRs as an important incentive for investment and innovation and a common objective for EU and US competition law is to achieve consumer welfare. Nonetheless, the EU approach also has to take in consideration the realization of an internal market, which is an objective not shared with the US. Although compulsory licensing of an IPR could amount to excessive interference with a firm’s proprietary rights, both the Supreme Court and the CJEU have found situations, in which a firm has been compelled to license its IPR and where the refusal to license has been seen as an abusive conduct in contrast with competition law. Additionally, EU law presumes that an abusive conduct is in contrast with competition law, with possibilities to exempt or justify such conduct either under block exemption regulations or Article 101.3 TFEU; US law instead distinguishes between conduct either prohibited per se or treated under the rule of reason and seeing to whether the restraint is reasonably necessary to achieve procompetitive benefits that outweigh anticompetitive effects. In conclusion, the approach of the two systems of law differ, where the CJEU has went with a more formalistic approach rather than the rule of reason applied by the Supreme Court.},
  author       = {Leffler Olsson, Linda},
  keyword      = {Intellectual Property Rights,Competition law},
  language     = {eng},
  note         = {Student Paper},
  title        = {Restricting the Use of an Intellectual Property Right – The Cross-Atlantic View on Compulsory Licensing},
  year         = {2013},
}