Suchergebnisse

In this short piece, I critically discuss the development of harm to innovation as a theory of anticompetitive harm in EU merger policy, following the conditional approval of the Dow/Dupont in 2017. © 2018 Institute of Competition Law.

In European legal scholarship, many articles discuss the equilibrium reached in the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union ("CJEU") when the EU antitrust prohibitions apply to, and restrain, the free and ordinary use of intellectual property rights ("IPRs"). We call this the antitrust-IP intersection. The most interesting feature of this literature is perhaps the common assumption that a unifying substantive perspective, vision or theory on IPR underpins the intersection point reached by the antitrust case-law. Whilst the theory of "absolutism" can be quickly disposed of, several other theories like inherency, exceptionalism or complementarity have been described as the lynchpin of the antitrust-IP intersection. Our paper offers a different reading of the case-law. It submits that the antitrust-IP intersection does not rest on any unitary theory which, in turn, bespeaks the Court's vision of the social function of IPRs. Instead, the main feature of the CJEU case-law is that a specific methodology is applied to antitrust cases with IPR ramifications. The CJEU deals with most of such cases under a rule-based approach, instead of a standard-based approach. By rule-based approach, we refer to the ex ante setting of structured tests of liability, by opposition to ex post case-by-case resolution on grounds of a pre-determined, general standard (e.g., reasonableness, competition on the merits, efficiency, fairness, equity, etc.). As will be seen below, this approach has many virtues, not least in terms of legal certainty. But it also has a major qualification. Whilst the Court has consistently formulated rules of liability and justifiability at the antitrust and IP intersection, it has at the same time often embedded abstract standards within those rules. The implications of this mixed approach are unclear. ; Peer reviewed

A novel theory of harm is crystallising in European Union ("EU") merger control. Under this theory, the EU Commission ("Commission") can intervene in mergers that it considers generally reduce innovation incentives in an industry as a whole. This theory of harm can be referred to as the Significant Impediment to Industry Innovation ("SIII") theory. This policy paper first attempts to describe the content and extent of the SIII theory (I). Second, it shows that the SIII theory marks a departure from established EU merger control practice (II). Third, it discusses the economic foundations of the SIII theory (III). Finally, it puts forward best practices for the assessment of mergers in R&D intensive industries (IV). With this, the present paper hopes to assist the development of sound merger control policy in innovative markets, and undermine crude conjectures on the relationship between market structure, patent statistics and industry innovation theory.

The Opinion delivered by Advocate General Wahl in Intel v Commission ("the Opinion") invites the Court of Justice of the EU ("CJEU") to "refine its case-law relating to the abuse of a dominant position" under Article 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU ("TFEU"). In essence, the Opinion invites the CJEU to return to first principles and inject common sense into the law of Article 102 TFEU, in the wake of the evolution started by Post Danmark I and Post Danmark II. This can be understood through eight key points, the common thread of which is a concern to ensure legal coherence and economic reason in the application of Article 102 TFEU. This brief commentary highlights those eight points, and suggests that some should be taken even further than AG Wahl proposes. ; Peer reviewed

In the last years, some Standard-Setting Organizations ("SSOs") active in wireless communications have experimented new pricing principles for standard essential patents ("SEPs"). One of those experiments is the "SSPPU" rule. Under SSPPU, the licensing rates paid to owners of SEPs for the use of their technology shall reflect the "value that the functionality of the claimed invention or inventive feature…contributes to the value of the relevant functionality of the smallest saleable Compliant Implementation that practices the Essential Patent Claim". This paper reviews the SSPPU experiment through the lenses of the Coase theorem. It finds that SSPPU interferes with the efficient operation of the price system, and is likely to reduce investment in socially beneficial activities, including in General Purpose Technologies ("GPTs") which are key drivers of economic growth.