IP in the New Economy: Competition Law and Intellectual Property

The module illustrates the connections among innovation policy, competition law and intellectual property (IP) rights and shows the way in which the law can work as a key instrument of innovation policy. This is the most dynamic and active area of competition law enforcement worldwide as this can be illustrated by the competition cases brought against hi tech firms, such as Microsoft, Intel, Google and the patent wars (and subsequent competition law battles) between global tech powerhouses, such as Apple and Samsung. These cases push competition law and intellectual property law to new boundaries and bring also forward the issue of establishing institutions that are aware of the challenge of protecting innovation and dynamic efficiency. The subjects covered include:

the economics of innovation policy
competition law and monopolistic practices involving IP rights
vertical integration and related licensing practices by IP holders
horizontal restraints involving IP rights licensing
mechanisms integrating competition policy concerns within IP law (e.g. the patent misuse doctrine, compulsory licensing)
the development of international standards for the IP/Antitrust interface (WTO)
the interaction between competition law and IP rights in specific sectors such as pharmaceuticals, biotechnology or software.

Aims:

The aims of this course are:

to to inform students on the interaction between competition law and IP rights and illustrate ways in which the law can work as key instrument of innovation policy
to inform students on the specific application of competition law to licensing agreements involving intellectual property
to inform students of the competition law principles that apply to monopolistic practices involving IP rights
to enable students to understand the interaction between IP rights and competition law in an era of global markets

Objectives:

By the end of the course, students should be able to:

identify and understand competition law issues arising in drafting and reviewing intellectual property licensing arrangements;
determine when the acquisition, licensing and/or enforcement of intellectual property rights violate antitrust laws; and
critically evaluate the interaction between competition law and IP rights within different jurisdictions (EU and US)

Course Outline

Seminar 1: How innovation happens? Dialogues between competition law and intellectual property

Seminar 2: Competition policy and IP: beyond competition law (Exhaustion in Europe and the US)

Seminar 3: Monopolistic practices involving IP rights I: Refusals to license

Seminar 4: Monopolistic Practices involving IP rights II: exclusionary practices: product design, interoperability, tying, bundling (case study: Microsoft)

Seminar 5: Monopolistic Practices involving IP rights III: abusive IP litigation, use and abuse of regulatory procedures (case study: Astra/Zeneca)

Seminar 6: Monopolistic Practices involving IP rights IV: Excessive royalties/exploitative abuses and New forms of abuses (case study: Google search)

Seminar 7: Standard Setting, IP law and Competition Law (case study: Apple, Samsung and the Patent Wars)

Seminar 8: Antitrust analysis of IP Agreements (licensing agreements, the block exemption regulation)

Seminar 9: IP law doctrines of relevance to competition law: validity; infringement (including doctrine of equivalents); compulsory licensing; patent misuse doctrine

Seminar 10: The reform of the patent system

Seminar 11: Sector focus: Pharmaceuticals

Seminar 12: Biotechnology

Seminar 13: The music industry

Seminar 14: Google books case study

Bibliography

Recommended books/volumes for the course

Christina Bohannan & Herbert Hovenkamp, Creation without Restraint- Promoting Libert & Rivalry in Innovation (OUP, 2011)
Ioannis Lianos & Rochelle Dreyfuss, New Challenges in the Intersection of Intellectual Property Rights with Competition Law: A View from Europe and the United States, CLES 4/2013, available at http://www.ucl.ac.uk/cles/research-paper-series/research-papers/cles-4-2013
Keith Maskus, Private Rights and Public Problems – The Global Economics of Intellectual Property in the 21^st Century (Peterson Institute for International Economics, 2012)

Additional Bibliography for the course (those with an asterisk should be consulted more often)

Steven Anderman (ed.), The Interface between Intellectual Property Rights and Competition Policy (CUP, 2007)
Steven Anderman & John Kallaugher, Technology Transfer and the New EU Competition Rules (OUP, 2006)
*James Bessen & Michael M. Meurer, Patent Failure: How judges, bureaucrats and lawyers put innovatorsd at risk (Princeton University Press, 2008)
William J. Baumol, The Free Market Innovation Machine (Princeton Univ. Press., 2002)
Lionel Bently & Brad Sherman, Intellectual Property Law (OUP, 3^nd ed., 2008)
*Michael A. Carrier, Innovation for the 21^st century: harnessing the power of intellectual property and antitrust law (OUP, 2009)
*Kevin Coates, Competition Law and Regulation of Technology Markets (Oxford University Press, 2011)
G. Caggiano, G. Muscolo & M. Tavassi (eds.), Competition Law and Intellectual property. The European Perspective (Kluwer, 2012)
*Joseph Drexl (ed.), Research Handbook on Intellectual Property and Competition Law (Edward Elgar, 2008)
W. Cornish, D. Llewelyn & T. Aplin, Intellectual Property: Patents, Copyright, Trade Marks an Allied Rights (7^th ed., Sweet & Maxwell, 2013)
Rochelle Dreyfuss, Diane Zimmerman & Harry First, Expanding the Boundaries of Intellectual Property (OUP, 2001)
Rochelle Dreyfuss, with Harry First & Diane Zimmerman, Working Within the Boundaries of Intellectual Property: Innovation for the Knowledge Age (Oxford University Press, 2009)
Claus-Dieter Ehlermann & Isabela Atanasiu, European Competition Law Annual 2005The Interaction between Competition Law and Intellectual Property Law (Hart Pub. 2007)
Jerry Ellig (ed.), Dynamic Competition and Public Policy (CUP, 2001)
Frank Fine, The EC Competition Law on Technology Licensing (Sweet & Maxwell, 2006)
Gustavo Ghidini, Intellectual property and Competition Law – The Innovation Nexus (Edward Elgar, 2006)
*Gustavo Ghidini, Innovation, Competition and Consumer Welfare in Intellectual Property Law (Edward Elgar, 2010)
Marcus Glader, Innovation Markets and Competition Analysis – EU Competition Law and US Antitrust Law (Edward Elgar, 2006)
*Dominique Guellec & Bruno van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie, The Economics of the European Patent System (OUP, 2007)
Irina Haracoglou, Competition Law and Patents (Edward Elgar, 2008)
Keith Hylton, The Laws of Creation: Property Rights in the World of Ideas, with Ronald Cass, (Harvard University Press, 2012)
*Herbert Hovenkamp, Mark A. Lemley & Mark D. Janis, IP and Antitrust: An Analysis of Antitrust Principles Applied to Intellectual Property Law (2 Volumes, Aspen Pub., 2002-)
Adam B. Jaffe & Josh Lerner, Innovation and its Discontents (Princeton Univ. Press, 2004)
Dina Kallay, The Law and Economics of Antitrust and Intellectual Property: An Austrian Approach (Edward Elgar, 2004)
Valentine Korah, Intellectual Property Rights and the EC Competition Rules(Hart Pub. 2006)
William M. Landes & Richard A. Posner, The Economic Structure of Intellectual Property Law (Harvard Univ. Press, 2003)
François Lévêque & Howard Shelanski, Antitrust, Patents, and Copyright : EU and US Perspectives (Edward Elgar, 2005)
*Ioannis Lianos & Daniel Sokol (eds.), The Global Boundaries of Competition Law (Stanford University Press, 2012)
*Ioannis Lianos & Damien Geradin (eds.), Handbook in European Competition Law: Substantive Issues (Edward Elgar, 2013)
*Ioannis Lianos & Damien Geradin (eds.), Handbook in European Competition Law: Enforcement and Procedure (Edward Elgar, 2013)
Christopher May & Susan K. Sell, Intellectual Property Rights – A Critical History (Lynne Rienner, 2006)
Keith E. Maskus & Jerome H. Reichman, International public goods and transfer of technology under a globalized intellectual property regime (CUP, 2005)
Illka Rahnasto, Intellectual Property Rights, External Effects, and Antitrust Law (OUP, 2003)
Susan Sell, Power and ideas: North-South politics of intellectual property and antitrust (State University of New York Press, 1998)
Suzanne Scrothcmer, Innovation & Incentives (MIT Press, 2004)
Chris Stothers, Parallel Trade in Europe – Intellectual Property, Competition Law and Regulatory Law (Hart Pub. 2007)

Journals

Common Market Law Review
available online at http://www.kluwerlawonline.com/

Competition Law Review
available at http://www.clasf.org.libproxy.ucl.ac.uk/CompLRev/

Competition Law Journal (published by Jordans)

Competition Policy International https://www.competitionpolicyinternational.com/

European Competition Law Review
available at Westlaw

CPI Antitrust Chronicle, available at https://www.competitionpolicyinternational.com/chronicle/

European Business Law Review
available at Kluweronline

European Law Review
available online via Westlaw: http://www.ucl.ac.uk/Library/ejournal/

Journal of Competition Law and Economics
available online via Westlaw

http://www.ucl.ac.uk/Library/ejournal/

World Competition
available at Swetswise and Kluweronline

E Competitions Bulletin
available at http://www.concurrences.com/index.php

Competition Law Monitor
available at Lexis Nexis

Competition Law Insight

Antitrust Law Journal (US)
available at Westlaw

Journal of European Competition Law and Practice
Available at http://jeclap.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/recent

International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law (IIC), Munich: Verlag C.H. Beck; Oxford, Hart Pub.

Cases

European Case Law

The case law of the Court of Justice (ECJ) and the General Court (GC) is published in the European Court Reports (ECR). This is the authoritative version of ECJ and GC cases and references to cases will mainly be from this series. You should be familiar with its location and how to find the correct volume.

§ For example: Case 16/62 Van Gend en Loos [1963] ECR 1 – Case citations include a case number, which gives first the filing number of the case and then the year in which it was filed at the Court Registry. Thus, Case 16/62 Van Gend en Loos [1963] ECR 1, is the 16th case to be filed in 1962. It was decided and reported in 1963
§ Since the advent of the General Court (previously named Court of First Instance), case numbers are prefixed with a letter: ‘C’ for the Court of Justice and ‘T’ for the General Court. (If a case goes on appeal from the GC to the ECJ it is given a new number and a ‘P’ appears at the end of the case number).
§ Judgments of the ECJ consist of a Judgment which is preceded by an Opinion of an Advocate General. (NB: not Attorney General). The AG’s duty is set out in the Treaty, which states ‘acting with complete impartiality and independence, to make, in open court, reasoned submissions on cases brought before the Court of Justice…’. The AG’s opinion does not bind the Court but often the ECJ’s judgment will be consistent with it. Moreover, as the AG will often range more widely through the facts and case law, a greater understanding of the law and the issues will be gained from reading the AG’s opinion.

ECJ judgments and opinions of the Advocates-General and GC judgments are available online at:

§ http://curia.europa.eu/en/content/juris/index.htm (the cases are searchable by the name of the parties or the case number); and at
§ http://curia.europa.eu/jurisp/cgi-bin/form.pl?lang=en (cases searchable by year and case number)

European cases on competition law are also published in the Common Market Law Reports - Antitrust (CMLR), which also include major cases with a European impact decided by national courts.

Seminar 1: How innovation happens? Dialogues between competition law and intellectual property

Required reading (before the seminar)

*Ioannis Lianos & Rochelle Dreyfuss, New Challenges in the Intersection of Intellectual Property Rights with Competition Law, CLES 04/2013, available at http://www.ucl.ac.uk/cles/research-paper-series/research-papers/cles-4-2013 (FOR THIS SEMINAR READ ONLY pp. 6-37)

-*The Economist, Does Innovation Drive Growth? available on Moodle

Seminar 2: Competition policy beyond competition law: the exhaustion doctrine

Required Reading

*Hovenkamp, Herbert J., Innovation and Competition Policy, Ch. 10 (2d ed): Post-Sale and Related Distribution Restraints Involving IP Rights (May 19, 2013). Cases and Materials on Innovation and Competition Policy, Chapter 10, 2013. Available at SSRN: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1949392

Read in particular the following judgments: Quanta Computer Inc., v. LG Electronic Inc.553 U.S. 617 (2008);Bowman v. Monsanto_ S.Ct. _ (May 13, 2013) & Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., --- S.Ct. ---- (March 19, 2013), which are included at pp*. 17-45

*Joined cases C-414 & 416/99 Zino Davidoff and Levi Straus[2001] ECR I-8691

Guido Westkamp, Intellectual property, Competition rules and the emerging Internal Market: Some thoughts on the European exhaustion doctrine, (2007) 11(2) Marquette Intellectual Property Law Review 291-335, available at http://law.marquette.edu/ip/Westkamp.pdf

Seminar 3: Monopolistic practices involving IP rights I: Refusals to license

Reading before class

*= required reading

-*Article 102 TFEU available at http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:C:2008:115:0047:0199:EN:PDF and Section2 of the Sherman Act, available at http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/15/usc_sec_15_00000002----000-.html

- *Ioannis Lianos & Rochelle Dreyfuss, New
Challenges in the Intersection of Intellectual Property Rights with Competition Law, CLES 04/2013, available at http://www.ucl.ac.uk/cles/research-paper-series/research-papers/cles-4-2013 (FOR THIS SEMINAR READ ONLY pp. 32-81)

- * Case 238/87 AB Volvo v Erik Veng (UK) Ltd [1988] ECR 6211

- *Joined Cases C-241/91 & C-242/91 Radio Telefis Eireann (RTE) v Commission (Magill) [1995] ECR I-743

- *Case 7/97, Oscar Bronner GmbH & Co KG v Mediaprint [1998] ECR I-7791 (Read also the Opinion of Advocate general Jacobs)

- *Case C-418/01 IMS Health GmbH & Co. OHG v NDC Health GmbH [2004] I-5039

- *Case T-201/04 Microsoft v Commission [2007] (interoperability part, handout pp 1-23, and questions 1-42)

- * Communication from the Commission — Guidance on the Commission's enforcement priorities in applying Article 82 of the EC Treaty to abusive exclusionary conduct by dominant undertakings (Text with EEA relevance) OJ C 45, 24.2.2009, p. 7–20 available at http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:C:2009:045:0007:0020:EN:PDF (READ IN PARTICULAR paragraphs 1-22, 28-31 and 75-90.)

Reading after class (those with an asterisk are required reading)

- European Commission, IBM Undertaking (1984), available at http://www.cptech.org/at/ibm/ibm1984ec.html

- *US Department of Justice & Federal Trade Commission, Antitrust Enforcement and Intellectual Property Rights – Promoting Innovation and Competition, April 2007, chap. 1, available at http://www.ftc.gov/reports/innovation/P040101PromotingInnovationandCompetitionrpt0704.pdf

- Antitrust Modernization Commission, Final Report, available at http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/amc/report_recommendation/amc_final_report.pdf (Read pp. 31-46, 81-95, 101-104

- *Herbert Hovenkamp, Mark D. Janis, and Mark A. Lemley, Unilateral Refusals to Licence, (2006) 2 Journal of Competition law and Economics 1-42, available at http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=703161

- Data General Corp. v Grumman Systems Support Corp., 36 F.3d 1147 (1st Cir. 1994) available at Westlaw

- Image Technical Services, Inc v Eastman Kodak, Co, 125 F.3d 1195 (1997) available at Westlaw

- CSU, L.L.C. v Xerox Corp., 203 F.3d 1322 (2000) available at Westlaw

- *Verizon Communications v. Law Offices of Curtis V. Trinko, 540 U.S. 398 (2004) available at Westlaw

Seminar 4: Monopolistic Practices involving IP rights II : exclusionary practices: product design, interoperability, tying, bundling

Reading (before class)

*= required reading

General

- *US Department of Justice & Federal Trade Commission, Antitrust Enforcement and Intellectual Property Rights – Promoting Innovation and Competition, April 2007, chap. 5, available at http://www.ftc.gov/reports/innovation/P040101PromotingInnovationandCompetitionrpt0704.pdf (READ ONLY pp. 103-114)

EU Microsoft I//US Microsoft II

- *Microsoft EU (handouts are available on Moodle, see materials of the previous session)

- *US Microsoft Handout (available on Moodle) read Parts I, II, III, IV, V(A, D, E, F)

- US v. Microsoft webpage at the US DOJ, http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/ms_index.htm

- *Nick Economides & Ioannis Lianos, The Elusive Antitrust Standard on Bundling in Europe and in the United States in the Aftermath of the Microsoft Cases, (2009). Antitrust Law Journal, Vol. 76, No. 1, NET Institute Working Paper No. 07-47; NYU Law and Economics Research Paper No. 08-02; University College London Law Research Paper No. 09-03; NYU Stern School of Business 2451/26009. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1078932

- Korean Microsoft case http://ftc.go.kr/data/hwp/micorsoft_case.pdf

New EU Microsoft cases /remedies

- Commission Decision, Microsoft (commitment), December 2009, available at http://ec.europa.eu/competition/antitrust/cases/dec_docs/39530/39530_2671_3.pdf

- T-167/08, Microsoft v. Commission (June 27, 2012), available at http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=124434&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=req&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=1256823

*European Commission Press release, Antitrust: Commission fines Microsoft for non-compliance with browser choice commitments, available at http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-13-196_en.htm

Reading after the seminar

- First, Harry and Gavil, Andrew I., Re-Framing Windows: The Durable Meaning of the Microsoft Antitrust Litigation. Utah Law Review, 2006; NYU Law School, Public Law Research Paper No. 06-39; NYU Law and Economics Research Paper No. 06-55. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=950515

- *Harry First, Microsoft and the Evolution of the Intellectual Property Concept. Wisconsin Law Review, 2006; NYU, Law and Economics Research Paper No. 06-46; NYU Law School, Public Law Research Paper No. 06-33. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=936230

- *Nicholas Economides and Ioannis Lianos, A Critical Appraisal of Remedies in the EU Microsoft Cases (December 15, 2009). Columbia Business Law Review, Vol. 2010, No. 2; NET Institute Working Paper No. #09-29; NYU Law and Economics Research Paper No. 10-02. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1523908

- Carl Shapiro, Microsoft: A Remedial Failure, available at http://faculty.haas.berkeley.edu/SHAPIRO/microsoft2009.pdf ; See also the critical comments of Keith Hylton, Remedies, Antitrust Law, and Microsoft: Comment on Shapiro 75 ANTITRLJ 773 (2009)

- Daniel A. Crane, Bargaining in the Shadow of Rate-Setting Courts, 76 ANTITRLJ 307 (2009)

- Eleanor Fox, What is Harm to Competition? Exclusionary Practices and Anticompetitive Effect, 70 Antitrust Law Journal 371 (2002) available on Westlaw US

- Pierre Larouche, The European Microsoft Case at the Crossroads of Competition Policy and Innovation (May 2008). TILEC Discussion Paper No. 2008-021. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1140165 and comments on the paper by Tom Rosch (FTC) http://www.ftc.gov/speeches/rosch/081029roschrviewsoneuro.pdf

- Ahlborn, Christian and Evans, David S., The Microsoft Judgment and its Implications for Competition Policy Towards Dominant Firms in Europe (April 1, 2008). Antitrust Law Journal, Vol. 75, No. 3, 2009. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1115867

Seminar 5: Monopolistic Practices involving IP rights III: abusive IP litigation, use and abuse of regulatory procedures

Required reading before class

- *Ioannis Lianos & Rochelle Dreyfuss, New Challenges in the Intersection of Intellectual Property Rights with Competition Law, CLES 04/2013, available at http://www.ucl.ac.uk/cles/research-paper-series/research-papers/cles-4-2013 (FOR THIS SEMINAR READ ONLY pp. *81-86 )

- *Professional Real Estate Investors, Inc v. Columbia Pictures Indus., Inc, 508 U.S. 49 (1993), available at http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/91-1043.ZO.html

- *Herbert Hovenkamp, The Walker Process Doctrine: Infringement Lawsuits as Antitrust Violations (September 01, 2008). U Iowa Legal Studies Research Paper No. 08-36. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1259877

- *Case T-111/96, ITT Promedia NV v Commission [1998] ECR II-2937, available at http://curia.europa.eu

-*Case C-457/10P, AstraZeneca v Commission [2012], available at http://curia.europa.eu

Reading after class

*= required reading

- Commission Dec. AstraZeneca (2005), case COMP/A. 37.507/F3, Read para. 602-862, available at http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:32006D0857:EN:NOT

- *Case T-321/05 AstraZeneca v Commission [2010] ECR II-2805, available at http://curia.europa.eu

- *Nobelpharma AB v Implant Innovations, Inc., 141 F.3d 1059 (Fed. Cir. 1998)

- Walker Process Equipment v. Food Mach. & Chem Corp., 382 U.S. 172 (1965)

- S.W. O’Donnell, Unified Theory of Antitrust Counterclaims in Patent Litigation, 9 Virginia Journal of law & Technology 8 (2004) available at US Westlaw

- Unitherm Food Systems v. Swift Eckrich, Inc., 375 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2004)

- Handgards, Inc v. Ethicon, Inc., 601 F.2d 986 (9^th Cir. 1979)

- Handgards, Inc v. Ethicon, Inc, 743 F.2d 1282 (9^th Cir. 1984)

Seminar 6: Monopolistic Practices involving IP rights IV: Excessive royalties/exploitative abuses

Required reading before class
- *Ioannis Lianos & Rochelle Dreyfuss, New Challenges in the Intersection of Intellectual Property Rights with Competition Law, CLES 04/2013, available at http://www.ucl.ac.uk/cles/research-paper-series/research-papers/cles-4-2013 (FOR THIS SEMINAR READ ONLY pp. 103-111)

- *Mark Lemley and Carl Shapiro, Patent Holdup and Royalty Stacking. Texas Law Review, Vol. 85, 2007; Stanford Law and Economics Olin Working Paper No. 324. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=923468

- *Verizon Commc’ns, Inc v. Law Offices of Curtis V. Trinko, LLP, 540 U.S. 407 (2004) (available on Moodle)

- *Commission Decision in Microsoft available at http://ec.europa.eu/competition/antitrust/cases/dec_docs/37792/37792_4177_1.pdf READ ONLY paragraphs 1005-1009

- *Commission warns Microsoft of further penalties over unreasonable pricing as interoperability information lacks significant innovation IP/07/269 http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/07/269&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en

- *Commission receives reply from Microsoft to statement of objections on unreasonable pricing of interoperability information, MEMO/07/148, available at http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=MEMO/07/148&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en

- * Commission ensures compliance with 2004 Decision against Microsoft, IP/07/1567, http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/07/1567&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en

- *Antitrust: Commission initiates formal proceedings against Qualcomm, available at http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=MEMO/07/389&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en

-* Case T-167/08, Microsoft Corp. v European Commission (2012), available at curia.eu (focus on paras 102-164)

Reading after class

*=required reading

- *David Evans & Jorge Padilla, Excessive Prices: Using Economics to Define Administrable Legal Rules’ (2005) 1 Journal of Competition Law and Economics108

- James F. McDonough, The Myth of the Patent Troll: An Alternative View of the Function of Patent Dealers in an Idea Economy. Emory Law Journal, Vol. 56, p. 189, 2006; Emory Public Law Research Paper No. 07-6; Emory Law and Economics Research Paper No. 07-7. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=959945

- Einer Elhauge, Do Patent Holdup and Royalty Stacking Lead to Systematically Excessive Royalties? (July 22, 2008). Harvard Law and Economics Discussion Paper No. 614. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1139133

- - *Case 27/76, United Brands v Commission [1978] ECR 207

- Attheraces v BHB [2005] EWHC 3015 (Ch), available at http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2005/3015.html

- Attheraces Ltd v the British Horseracing Board[2007] EWCA Civ 38 available at http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2007/38.html (comment and summary by Sophie Lawrance at http://jiplp.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/2/9/609#FN2

- Decision of the 9th Circuit in OHN DOE 1 and JOHN DOE 2, v. Abbott Laboratories, http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2009/07/07/08-17699.pdf

Seminar 7: Hot topics on the interaction between competition law and IP rights: Standard Setting Organizations, Standard Essential Patents, FRAND and reverse payment patent settlements in the pharma sector

- *Ioannis Lianos & Rochelle Dreyfuss, New Challenges in the Intersection of Intellectual Property Rights with Competition Law, CLES 04/2013, available at http://www.ucl.ac.uk/cles/research-paper-series/research-papers/cles-4-2013 (FOR THIS SEMINAR READ ONLY pp. 86-99 & 112-117)

- *EU Horizontal cooperation agreements guidelines, available at http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:52011XC0114(04):EN:NOT (READ ONLY paras 257-335)

- *Kai-Uwe Kühn, Fiona Scott Morton, & Howard Shelanski, “Standard Setting Organizations Can Help Solve the Standard Essential Patents Licensing Problem,” Competition Policy International Antitrust Chronicle(March 2013), available at https://www.competitionpolicyinternational.com/assets/Free/ScottMortonetalMar-13Special.pdf

- *In re Innovatio IP Ventures, LLC Patent Litigation, No. 11 C 9308 (N.D. Ill. 2013), available at http://essentialpatentblog.com/2013/10/public-version-of-judge-holdermans-rand-determination-in-innovatio-wifi-sep-litigation/

- *Antitrust: Commission fines Lundbeck and other pharma companies for delaying market entry of generic medicines, http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-13-563_en.htm

- *Hovenkamp, Herbert J., Anticompetitive Patent Settlements and the Supreme Court's Actavis Decision (November 9, 2013). Minnesota Journal of Law, Science & Technology, Forthcoming; U Iowa Legal Studies Research Paper No. 13-35. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2286255

Seminar 8: Antitrust Analysis of Licensing Agreements for the Transfer of Technology

Required reading before class

- Revision of the rules for the assessment of licensing agreements for the transfer of technology under EU competition law, http://ec.europa.eu/competition/consultations/2012_technology_transfer/index_en.html

- *Proposal for a revised technology transfer block exemption regulation, available at http://ec.europa.eu/competition/consultations/2013_technology_transfer/regulation_en.pdf

- *European Commission, Transfer of Technology Guidelines (2004), http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:C:2004:101:0002:0042:EN:PDF

- *Commission Regulation (EC) No 772/2004 of 27 April 2004 on the application of Article 81(3) of the Treaty to categories of technology transfer agreements, http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:32004R0772:EN:HTML

- *FTC & US DOJ, Antitrust Guidelines for the Licensing of Intellectual Property, April 6, 1995, available at http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/public/guidelines/0558.pdf

Seminar 9: Compulsory licensing/Patent misuse doctrine, doctrine of equivalents, jurisdictional and procedural issues governing the antitrust/IP interface in Europe and in the United States - focus on the limitations which intellectual property applies to avoid competition problems in the first place

Compulsory licensing: comparative perspectives

Required reading before class

- Christopher Stothers, IMS Health and its Implications for Compulsory Licensing [2004] EIPR 467

- Christopher Stothers, CFI upholds ‘compulsory licences’ of Green Dot trade mark, [2007] JIPLP 653

- Christopher Stothers, ECJ upholds ‘compulsory licences’ of Green Dot trade mark [2009] JIPLP 854

- Consider the following questions:

o What is the purpose of the “essential facilities” doctrine? Is it intended to restrict, broaden or simply control antitrust interference?

o Are intellectual property rights treated differently to other “essential facilities”, and should they be?

o How important is terminology in this field (“essential facilities”; “compulsory licensing”; “exceptional circumstances”)

o What differences exist between the tests applied in Europe and in the United States? What differences exist in the application of those tests?

Patent misuse doctrine, doctrine of equivalents, jurisdictional and procedural issues

Required reading before class

- Either Bently & Sherman or Cornish & Llewellyn, the chapter on IP remedies or

- Ioannis Lianos & Rochelle Dreyfuss, New
Challenges in the Intersection of Intellectual Property Rights with Competition Law, CLES 04/2013, available at http://www.ucl.ac.uk/cles/research-paper-series/research-papers/cles-4-2013 (FOR THIS SEMINAR READ ONLY pp. 12-30)

- Patents Act 1977, ss48-53

- eBay Inc v MercExchange 547 US 206 (2006)

- Article 69 of the European Patent Convention and Protocol on the Interpretation of Article 69

Reading after class

- Kirin-Amgen Inc v Hoechst Marion Roussel Ltd[2004] UKHL 46

- Festo Corp v Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki Co, 532 US 722 (2002)

- Princo v ITC (C.A. Fed, 30 August 2010)

http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/images/stories/opinions-orders/07-1386.pdf

- European Commission’s Pharmaceutical Sector Inquiry (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/sectors/pharmaceuticals/inquiry/index.html), in particular the Commission Communication and the Conclusions of the DG Comp Working Paper [in outline only]

- Consider the following questions:

o Is intellectual property likely to lead to competition problems or be immune from competition problems?

o Are competition concerns better solved by competition law, intellectual property or both?

o Should economic analysis affect the answer to the above questions?

o Should morality affect the answer to the above questions?

o How could we improve the current regulatory structure?

Seminar 10: The reform of patent law /Student presentations on the industry/horizontal challenges - case studies

- *Kitch, E., ‘The Nature and Function of the Patent System’,(1977) 20 Journal of Law & Economics 265.Available on JSTOR.

- *McFetridge D.G. & Smith D.A., ‘Patents, Prospects, and Economic Surplus: A Comment’, (1980) 23 Journal of Law & Economics 197.Available on JSTOR.

- Kitch E., ‘Patents, Prospects, and Economic Surplus: A Reply’,(1980) 23 Journal of Law and Economics 205.Available on JSTOR.

- *Merges R.P. & Nelson R., ‘On the Complex Economics of Patent Scope’,(1990) 90 Columbia Law Review 839.

- Grady M.F. & Alexander J.I., ‘Patent Law and Rent Dissipation’, (1992) 78 Virginia Law Review 305.

- Merges R.P., ‘Rent Control in the Patent District: Observations on the Grady-Alexander Thesis’,(1992) 78 Virginia Law Review 359.

- Lemley M,, ‘Reconceiving Patents in the Age of Venture Capital’(2000) 4 Journal of Small and Emerging Business Law 137.

- Long C., ‘Patent Signals’(2002) 69 University of Chicago Law Review625.

- Oddi, ‘Un-Unified Economic Theories of Patents – The Not-Quite-Holy Grail’, (1996) 71 Notre Dame Law Review 267

Seminar 11: Pharmaceuticals

Required reading before class

- Christopher Stothers, Parallel Trade in Europe: Intellectual Property, Competition and Regulatory Law (Hart Pub.), especially pp74-113 (repackaging),149-170 (concept of agreement between undertakings), 178-184 (refusing supplies or charge more for products for export), 294-318 (pharmaceutical regulation)

- P Danzon and A Towse, Differential Pricing for Pharmaceuticals: Reconciling Access, R&D and Patents [2003] International Journal of Health Care Finance and Economics 3:183

- Case C-348/04 Boehringer Ingelheim [2007] ECR I-3391

- Joined Case C-2/01P and C-3/01P Adalat [2004] ECR I-23

- Case C-53/03 SYFAIT [2005] ECR I-4609; Joined Cases C-468/06 et al Sot. Lelos [2008] ECR I-7139

- Joined Cases C-501/06 et al GlaxoSmithKline (judgment of 6 October 2009)

- Commission Decision 2006/857 AstraZeneca [2006] OJ L332/24; appeal T-321/05 (judgment of 1 July 2010); appeal C-457/10 (judgment of 6 December 2012)

- European Commission’s Pharmaceutical Sector Inquiry (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/sectors/pharmaceuticals/inquiry/index.html ), in particular the Commission Communication and the Conclusions of the DG Comp Working Paper [in outline only]

Reading after class

- *Stephanie McAviney, Ever broader border controls [2009] JIPLP 455-457

- *Christopher Stothers, Restricting pharma supplies and abuse of dominant position [2008] JIPLP 434-438

- Christopher Stothers, Counterfeit pharmaceuticals enter the parallel supply chain [2007] JIPLP 797-798

- P West and J Mahon, Benefits to Payers and Patients from Parallel Trade, York Health Economics Consortium, York, 2003

- P Kanavos et al, The Economic Impact of Pharmaceutical Parallel Trade in European Union Member States: A Stakeholder Analysis, London School of Economics, London, 2004

- Case 78/70 Deutsche Grammophon v Metro [1971] ECR 487

- Joined Cases C-427, 429 and 436/93 Bristol-Myers Squibb v Paranova [1996] ECR I-3457

- Case C-355/96 Silhouette International v Hartlauer [1998] ECR I-4799

- Joined Cases C-414-416/99 Zino Davidoff v A&G Imports [1999] ECR I-8691

- Case T-123/00 Dr Karl Thomae v Commission [2002] ECR II-5193

- Consider the following questions:

o How is the pharmaceutical sector regulated?

o What special IP and competition treatment is afforded to the sector?

o Is any special treatment deserved? Should it be restricted/broadened?

o What is the “access to medicines debate and what is the answer?

Seminar 12: BIOTECHNOLOGY

Essential Reading

- Mark Lemley & Dan Burk, Policy Levers in Patent law, 89 Virginia law Review 1575 (2003), available at http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=431360 (General introduction to the theory of IP as an industry specific regulation)

- *Ioannis Lianos, A regulatory theory of IP: Implications for Competition law, available at http://www.academia.edu/1670359/A_regulatory_theory_of_IP_Implications_for_Competition_law

- *Arti K. Rai, Open and Collaborative Research: A new Model for Biomedicine, in Intellectual property Rights in Frontier Industries: Software and Biotech (AEI Brookings Press, 2005) available at http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=574863

- *Arti K. Rai, Fostering Cumulative Innovation in the Biopharmaceutical Industry: The Role of Patents and Antitrust, 16 Berkeley Technology Law Journal813-853 (2001), available at http://eprints.law.duke.edu/archive/00001512/01/16_Berk._Tech._L.J._813_(2001).pdf

- *Irina Haracoglou, Competition law as a patent safety net in the Biopharmaceutical Industry, 1(2) Competition Law Review (2004), available at http://www.clasf.org/CompLRev/Issues/Vol1Issue2Article4.pdf

- Irina Haracoglou, Competition Law and Patents – A Follow-on perspective on the biopharmaceutical industry (Edward Elgar, 2008)

- *Directive 98/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 July 1998 on the legal protection of biotechnological inventions, available at http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:31998L0044:EN:HTML

Seminar 13: MUSIC INDUSTRY

I. Economics of collecting societies

*Handke, Christian and Towse, Ruth, Economics of Copyright Collecting Societies (July, 12 2008). International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law, Vol. 38, No.8, pp. 937-957, 2007 . Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1159085

Stanley M. Besen, Sheila N. Kerby & Steven C. Salop, An Economic Analysis of Copyright Collective, 78 Virginia Law Review 383 (1992)

II. Legislative materials

1. Commission Communication on the Management of Copyright and Related Rights in the Internal Market COM(2004) 261 final, available at: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2004:0261:FIN:EN:PDF

2. *Commission Recommendation on collective cross-border management of copyright and related rights for legitimate online music services OJ L 276, of 21.10.2005, p. 54, available at: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/site/en/oj/2005/l_276/l_27620051021en00540057.pdf

3. Management of Copyright and Related Rights (proposed Directive 2012), see http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/copyright/management/index_en.htm

III. Case law and Commission decisions

1. GEMA cases

GEMA I -Commission Decision 71/224/EEC of 2 June 1971, Case IV/26.760, OJ L 134, p. 15 (no German version available), 1971 CMLR D35;

GEMA II -Commission Decision 72/268/EEC of 6 July 1972, Case IV/26.760, OJ 24/07/1972 L 166, p. 22 (no English version available).

2. BRT/SABAM - Case 127/73, [1974] ECR 313

3. GVL v. Commission -Case 7/82, [1983] ECR 483.

4. *Ministère Public v Tournier, [1989] ECR 2521

5. *Lucazeau et al. v. SACEM,Joint Cases 110, 241 and 242/88,[1989] ECR 2811.

6. *IFPI Simulcasting

Commission clears one-stop agreements for the licensing of TV and radio music via the Internet, IP/02/1436, available at: http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/02/1436&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en

Case COMP/C2/38.014, 8 October 2002, [2003] OJ EC No. L 107, p. 58, available at: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:l:2003:107:0058:0084:en:PDF

7. *Santiago Agreement

Commission opens proceedings into collective licensing of music copyrights for online

use, IP/04/586, available at http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/04/586&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en

Notice published pursuant to Article 27(4) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 in Cases

COMP/C2/39152 — BUMA and COMP/C2/39151 SABAM (Santiago Agreement —

COMP/C2/38126). OJ C 200, 17.08.2005, p. 11-12, available at: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:C:2005:200:11:0012:EN:PDF

8. *CISAC (summary of the decision),http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:52008XC1218(02):EN:NOT ( Case COMP/C2/38.698 – CISAC, July 16, 2008)/ Press release http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/08/1165&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=fr

See the General Court's judgment in Case C-442/08, International Confederation of Societies of Authors and Composers (CISAC) v European Commission (April 12, 2013), for a summary see http://ipkitten.blogspot.co.uk/2013/04/cisac-decision-finally-out-and-likely.html

9. * Case C-52/07, Kanal 5 Ltd and TV4 AB v Föreningen Svenska Tonsättares Internationella Musikbyra (STIM) upa, Court of Justice of the European Communities, 11 December 2008. read also the Opinion of the Advocate General

10. C-425/07 P, AEPI Elliniki Etaireia pros Prostasian tis Pnevmatikis Idioktisias AE v Commission of the European Communities, April 23, 2009 (practices capable of affecting intra-community trade)

IV. Background reading

1. Introduction to CRMOs and the exclusive rights managed by them:

Stefan Alich, Rights Administered by CRMOs, part of the MPI Book Project: The Law of Collective Rights Management Organisations, October 2007, available at:

http://www.ip.mpg.de/shared/data/pdf/5_alich_-_rights_administered_by_crmos.pdf

WIPO, Introduction to Collective Management of Copyright and Related Rights, 2002, available at: http://www.wipo.int/export/sites/www/arab/en/meetings/2002/muscat_forum_ip/pdf/iptk_mct02_i6.pdf

2. Collective management of rights - the interface with EC competition law:

David Wood, Collective Management and EU Competition Law, V SGAE Conference on Intellectual Property, Competition and Collective Management, 2001, available at: http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/speeches/text/sp2001_025_en.pdf

3. Commission initiatives and the interface with competition law - EC Commission commentary:

Torben Toft, Collective rights management in the online world, A review of recent Commission initiatives, 2006, available at: http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/speeches/text/sp2006_008_en.pdf

V. Further Reading

1. Commission Staff Working Paper, Study on a Community initiative on the cross-border collective management of copyright, July 2005, available at: http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/copyright/docs/management/study-collectivemgmt_en.pdf

2. Herbert Ungerer, Application of Competition Rules to Internet Licensing, paper presented at the EDIMA seminar, 12 July 2005 available at: http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/speeches/text/sp2005_014_en.pdf

3. Tilman Lüder, Working toward the next generation of copyright licenses, paper presented at the 14th Fordham Conference on International Intellectual Property Law and Policy, April 20-21, 2006, available at:

http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/copyright/docs/docs/lueder_fordham_2006.pdf

4. Pavel Tuma, Pitfalls and challenges of the EC Directive on the collective management of copyright and related rights, E.I.P.R. 2006, 28(4), 220-229

5. Antonio Capobianco, Licensing of music rights: media convergence, technological developments and EC competition law. E.I.P.R. 2004, 26(3), 113-122 .

6. * Apple/iTunes - European Commission (COMP/39.154)

European Commission welcomes Apple's announcement to equalise prices for music downloads from iTunes in Europe, 9 January 2008, available at: http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/08/22

European Commission confirms sending a Statement of Objections against alleged territorial restrictions in on-line music sales to major record companies and Apple, 3 April 2007, available at: http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=MEMO/07/126&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en

VI. Other areas

Pricing of CDs/Recorded Music:

Office of Fair Trading, OFT tells record companies to stay in line, September 2002, available at: http://www.oft.gov.uk/news/press/2002/pn_59-02

Office of Fair Trading, Wholesale supply of compact discs, September 2002, available at: http://www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/reports/consumer_protection/oft391.pdf

UK Monopolies and Mergers Commission, The supply of recorded music: A report on the supply in the UK of pre-recorded compact disc, vinly discs and tapes containing music, 1994, available at: http://www.competition-commission.org.uk/rep_pub/reports/1994/356recordedmusic.htm#full

VII. Questions to consider before the session

1. What rights under copyright are commonly subject to collective management?

2. What aspects of competition law apply to CMROs?

3. How can CRMO practices fall foul of competition law?

4. What sort of clauses in CRMO agreements can be problematic from a competition law perspective?

5. How should internet licensing be dealt with from a competition law perspective?

6. How should reasonable royalties be evaluated?

Seminar 14. Google books as a case study of the application of competition law to new technology

Anticompetitive Settlement of IP disputes – copyright and the Google book settlement case study

*= recommended reading

The Google book digital library project illustrates the challenges that IP rights face in an increasingly digital environment. Google rel ied on fair use or fair dealing laws in order to defend itself from the copyright claims that opposed its scanning and indexing of books and other copyrighted materials (press). The settlement of the dispute in the US raises important competition law questions. Google’s practice has been successfully challenged in France. The seminar will adopt an economic welfare based perspective and will assess the interaction of competition law and copyright law (including the fair use doctrine and other alternatives) in order to reflect on the best (for economic welfare) governance mechanism.

· Larry Lessig, For the Love of Culture, available at http://www.newrepublic.com/article/the-love-culture

*Google book settlement, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Book_Search_Settlement_Agreement

*Amended settlement agreement, http://www.googlebooksettlement.com/r/view_settlement_agreement (NOT AVAILABLE ONLINE ANY MORE)

*DOJ submits views on amended Google book settlement, http://www.justice.gov/atr/public/press_releases/2010/255014.htm

French court rules against Google over book copying, http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE5BH2IK20091218?feedType=RSS&feedName=internetNews

Google defeated in Belgian copyright case; everyone but Google loses, http://arstechnica.com/old/content/2007/02/8831.ars

*Herbert J. Hovenkamp, Mark D. Janis. and Mark Lemley., Anticompetitive Settlement of Intellectual Property Disputes. Minnesota Law Review, Vol. 87, p. 1719, 2003; UC Berkeley, Public Law and Legal Theory Research Paper No. 113. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=380841 or doi:10.2139/ssrn.380841

Mark F. Schultz., Copynorms: Copyright and Social Norms (September 27, 2006). Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=933656

Oren Bracha, Standing Copyright Law on its Head? The Googlization of Everything and the Many Faces of Property. Texas Law Review, Vol. 85, p. 1799, 2007. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=931426

Randal C Picker., The Google Book Search Settlement: A New Orphan-Works Monopoly? (July 18, 2009). Journal of Competition Law & Economics, Forthcoming; U of Chicago Law & Economics, Olin Working Paper No. 462. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1387582

Einer Elhauge, Why the Google books settlement is procompetitive, available at http://www.law.harvard.edu/faculty/elhauge/pdf/Elhauge_646_Revised.pdf

*Department of Justice, STATEMENT OF INTEREST OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA REGARDING PROPOSED CLASS SETTLEMENT (Google Digital Books Case), available at http://www.justice.gov/atr/cases/f250100/250180.pdf

Amicus curiae, Open Book Alliance Against Google's settlement, http://www.openbookalliance.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/OBA09082009googlebrief.pdf

Amicus brief of Antitrust law and economics professors in support of Google's settlement, http://thepublicindex.org/docs/letters/antitrust_profs.pdf

Tim Brennan, The Proposed Google Book Settlement – Assessing Exclusionary Effects (October 2009). Global Competition Policy, Release Two, pp. 1-9, October 2009. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1503414

Pamela Samuelson, Legally Speaking: The Dead Souls of the Google Booksearch Settlement. Communications of the ACM, Vol. 52, July 2009; UC Berkeley Public Law Research Paper No. 1387782. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1387782

Mark M. Lemley, Mark A., An Antitrust Assessment of the Google Book Search Settlement (July 8, 2009). Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1431555

Wall Street Journal (October 2012),Google Weighs Mobile-Patent Antitrust Settlement, http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444592704578067012660157452.html

- The Author's Guild v. Google (November 2013), Southern District of New York, Judge Chin's Opinion (Google's fair use defence accepted), available at http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/threatlevel/2013/11/chindecision

Have you spotted a typo?
Highlight it, click Ctrl+Enter and send us a message. Thank you for your help!
To be used only for spelling or punctuation mistakes.

HSE — Skolkovo Institute for Law and Development

IP in the New Economy: Competition Law and Intellectual Property

Aims:

Objectives:

Course Outline

Bibliography

Recommended books/volumes for the course

Additional Bibliography for the course (those with an asterisk should be consulted more often)

Journals

Cases

European Case Law

Seminar 1: How innovation happens? Dialogues between competition law and intellectual property

Seminar 2: Competition policy beyond competition law: the exhaustion doctrine

Seminar 3: Monopolistic practices involving IP rights I: Refusals to license

Seminar 4: Monopolistic Practices involving IP rights II : exclusionary practices: product design, interoperability, tying, bundling

Seminar 5: Monopolistic Practices involving IP rights III: abusive IP litigation, use and abuse of regulatory procedures

Seminar 6: Monopolistic Practices involving IP rights IV: Excessive royalties/exploitative abuses

Seminar 7: Hot topics on the interaction between competition law and IP rights: Standard Setting Organizations, Standard Essential Patents, FRAND and reverse payment patent settlements in the pharma sector

Seminar 8: Antitrust Analysis of Licensing Agreements for the Transfer of Technology

Seminar 10: The reform of patent law /Student presentations on the industry/horizontal challenges - case studies

Seminar 11: Pharmaceuticals

Seminar 12: BIOTECHNOLOGY

Seminar 13: MUSIC INDUSTRY

Seminar 14. Google books as a case study of the application of competition law to new technology