PATENT ASSERTION ENTITIES AND EU COMPETITION LAW

被引:3
作者
Geradin, Damien [1 ,2 ,3 ]
机构
[1] Geradin Partners, Brussels, Belgium
[2] Tilburg Univ, Competit Law & Econ, Tilburg, Netherlands
[3] UCL, Law, London, England
关键词
INNOVATION; ANTITRUST;
D O I
10.1093/joclec/nhz012
中图分类号
F [经济];
学科分类号
02 ;
摘要
Patent assertion entities (PAEs) are playing an increasingly active role in Europe. Their activities are controversial in that although they may be a source of efficiencies, they may also create anticompetitive harm. Given the growing trend of operating companies transferring patents to PAEs to increase their licensing revenues, the risks of anticompetitive harm created by PAE activities must be taken seriously. When analyzing the impact of PAE activities on competition, a distinction must be drawn between "pure" PAEs, which acquire patents from a variety of sources and generate revenues by asserting them, and "hybrid" PAEs, which acquire patents from operating companies and maintain a relationship with these companies postacquisition. Although pure PAEs create risks of exploitation, hybrid PAEs create exclusionary concerns as such PAEs may be used by operating companies to harm their rivals on downstream product markets. These exclusionary concerns are particularly serious when the operating company retains a significant degree of control over the PAE's activities following the transfer of the patents. As there is currently no EU competition case-law on the activities of PAEs, this article attempts to show through hypotheticals that depending on the circumstances of each case, privateering may lead to exclusion.
引用
收藏
页码:204 / 236
页数:33
相关论文
共 42 条
[1]  
[Anonymous], 2009, IP ANTITRUST ANAL AN
[2]  
[Anonymous], 2015, CPI ANTITRUST CHRONI, V10, P2
[3]  
Bekkers R., ESSENTIAL PATENTS IN
[4]  
Brickley Peg, 2011, WALL STREET J
[5]  
Chia ThomasH., 2012, Berkeley Technology Law Journal, V27, P209
[6]  
Chien ColleenV., 2009, NC L REV, V87, P1571
[7]  
Cohen L., 2016, PATENT ASSERTION ENT, P27
[8]  
Contreras J., 2017, BERKELEY TECHNOLOGY, V32, P1464
[9]  
Contreras Jorge L., 2017, Berkeley Technology Law Journal, V32, P1457
[10]   REVISITING INJUNCTIVE RELIEF: INTERPRETING EBAY IN HIGH-TECH INDUSTRIES WITH NON-PRACTICING PATENT HOLDERS [J].
Denicolo, Vincenzo ;
Geradin, Damien ;
Layne-Farrar, Anne ;
Padilla, A. Jorge .
JOURNAL OF COMPETITION LAW & ECONOMICS, 2008, 4 (03) :571-608