Refusal to License: Competitor or Non-competitor – Does it Matter?
(2021) JURM02 20212Department of Law
Faculty of Law
- Abstract (Swedish)
- Artikel 102 FEUF förbjuder dominansmissbruk, vilket inkluderar vägran att
licensiera immaterialrättigheter (IMR) under exceptionella omständigheter.
Rekvisiten för att klassificera en licensvägran som missbruk har etablerats i
mål om dominerande företags vägran att licensiera egna konkurrenter. Genom
att utforska bedömningen av licensvägran ämnar denna uppsats utröna
huruvida och, om så, mot vilka rekvisit en vägran att licensiera ickekonkurrenter kan utgöra missbruk. Uppsatsen anlägger en rättsdogmatisk
metod, ackompanjerad av textuell, kontextuell, och teleologisk lagtolkning.
Uppsatsen utröner att vägran att licensiera icke-konkurrenter kan utgöra
missbruk. Medan en vägran att licensiera konkurrenter kan utgöra missbruk,
är... (More) - Artikel 102 FEUF förbjuder dominansmissbruk, vilket inkluderar vägran att
licensiera immaterialrättigheter (IMR) under exceptionella omständigheter.
Rekvisiten för att klassificera en licensvägran som missbruk har etablerats i
mål om dominerande företags vägran att licensiera egna konkurrenter. Genom
att utforska bedömningen av licensvägran ämnar denna uppsats utröna
huruvida och, om så, mot vilka rekvisit en vägran att licensiera ickekonkurrenter kan utgöra missbruk. Uppsatsen anlägger en rättsdogmatisk
metod, ackompanjerad av textuell, kontextuell, och teleologisk lagtolkning.
Uppsatsen utröner att vägran att licensiera icke-konkurrenter kan utgöra
missbruk. Medan en vägran att licensiera konkurrenter kan utgöra missbruk,
är vägran att licensiera icke-konkurrenter i vart fall inte mer skyddsvärd.
Dessutom, medan bedömningen av licensvägran respektive leveransvägran
(vägran av icke-IMR) väsentligen kongruerar, kan vägran att leverera ickekonkurrenter utgöra missbruk. Att ovillkorlig tillåta vägran att licensiera ickekonkurrenter skulle därför inte främja legal konsistens.
Uppsatsen utröner dessutom att licensvägran kan delas i två typer av
missbruk, vilka underkastas olika rekvisit: vägran i relation till konkurrenter
respektive icke-konkurrenter. En ytterligare delning mellan vägran i relation
till existerande och nya kunder förefaller obefogad. Angående rekvisiten
utgör en vägran att licensiera konkurrenter missbruk om relevant IMR är
nödvändig samt vägran riskerar att både eliminera effektiv konkurrens samt
förhindra marknadsutveckling. En vägran att licensiera icke-konkurrenter
utgör däremot missbruk redan om vägran riskerar att eliminera effektiv
konkurrens från det förvägrade företaget (motsvarande ett krav om
nödvändighet) samt förhindra marknadsutveckling. Därför åtskiljs
missbrukstyperna i huruvida missbruk kräver eliminering av all effektiv
konkurrens, eller om individuell eliminering är tillräckligt. (Less) - Abstract
- Article 102 TFEU prohibits abuse of dominance, including refusal to license intellectual property rights (IPRs) in exceptional circumstances. The requirements for classifying a refusal to license as abusive have been established in cases about dominant undertakings’ refusal to license their competitors. By exploring the assessment of refusals to license, this thesis examines whether and, if so, by what requirements a refusal to license non-competitors may be abusive. The thesis adopts a legal doctrinal method, accompanied by textual, contextual, and teleological interpretation.
This thesis finds that refusals to license non-competitors may be abusive. While a refusal to license competitors may be abusive, a refusal to license... (More) - Article 102 TFEU prohibits abuse of dominance, including refusal to license intellectual property rights (IPRs) in exceptional circumstances. The requirements for classifying a refusal to license as abusive have been established in cases about dominant undertakings’ refusal to license their competitors. By exploring the assessment of refusals to license, this thesis examines whether and, if so, by what requirements a refusal to license non-competitors may be abusive. The thesis adopts a legal doctrinal method, accompanied by textual, contextual, and teleological interpretation.
This thesis finds that refusals to license non-competitors may be abusive. While a refusal to license competitors may be abusive, a refusal to license non-competitors is in general at least not more worthy of protection. Moreover, while the assessment of refusals to license IPRs and refusals to supply (refusal of non-IPR) essentially correspond, a refusal to supply non-competitors may be abusive. Thus, invariably allowing refusals to license non-competitors would not endorse legal consistency.
Additionally, this thesis concludes that refusal to license can be divided into two types of abuses, facing different requirements: refusals in relation to competitors and non-competitors, respectively. An additional distinction between refusals in relation to new and existing customers appears unjustified. As to the requirements, a refusal to license competitors is abusive if the IPR is indispensable and the refusal risks both eliminate effective competition and prevent market development. Disparately, a refusal to license non-competitors should be abusive already if it risks eliminating effective competition by the undertaking refused (corresponding to a requirement of indispensability) and preventing market development. Hence, the types of abuses would differ in whether elimination of all effective competition is required, or individual elimination suffices. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
http://lup.lub.lu.se/student-papers/record/9069478
- author
- Lindén, Joar LU
- supervisor
- organization
- course
- JURM02 20212
- year
- 2021
- type
- H3 - Professional qualifications (4 Years - )
- subject
- keywords
- EU law, competition law, abuse of dominance, article 102 TFEU, refusal to license, refusal to license non-competitors, intellectual property, essential facility, indispensability, market development
- language
- English
- id
- 9069478
- date added to LUP
- 2022-01-20 11:34:53
- date last changed
- 2022-01-20 11:34:53
@misc{9069478,
abstract = {{Article 102 TFEU prohibits abuse of dominance, including refusal to license intellectual property rights (IPRs) in exceptional circumstances. The requirements for classifying a refusal to license as abusive have been established in cases about dominant undertakings’ refusal to license their competitors. By exploring the assessment of refusals to license, this thesis examines whether and, if so, by what requirements a refusal to license non-competitors may be abusive. The thesis adopts a legal doctrinal method, accompanied by textual, contextual, and teleological interpretation.
This thesis finds that refusals to license non-competitors may be abusive. While a refusal to license competitors may be abusive, a refusal to license non-competitors is in general at least not more worthy of protection. Moreover, while the assessment of refusals to license IPRs and refusals to supply (refusal of non-IPR) essentially correspond, a refusal to supply non-competitors may be abusive. Thus, invariably allowing refusals to license non-competitors would not endorse legal consistency.
Additionally, this thesis concludes that refusal to license can be divided into two types of abuses, facing different requirements: refusals in relation to competitors and non-competitors, respectively. An additional distinction between refusals in relation to new and existing customers appears unjustified. As to the requirements, a refusal to license competitors is abusive if the IPR is indispensable and the refusal risks both eliminate effective competition and prevent market development. Disparately, a refusal to license non-competitors should be abusive already if it risks eliminating effective competition by the undertaking refused (corresponding to a requirement of indispensability) and preventing market development. Hence, the types of abuses would differ in whether elimination of all effective competition is required, or individual elimination suffices.}},
author = {{Lindén, Joar}},
language = {{eng}},
note = {{Student Paper}},
title = {{Refusal to License: Competitor or Non-competitor – Does it Matter?}},
year = {{2021}},
}