[go: up one dir, main page]
More Web Proxy on the site http://driver.im/
IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/jcomle/v17y2021i4p947-977..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Nondiscrimination in Standard Essential Patents; ND Prong V. Art. 102(C) TFEU

Author

Listed:
  • Marco Botta
Abstract
The article analyses the meaning of the nondiscriminatory principle in disputes concerning Standard Essential Patents (SEPs) under EU competition and contract law (that is, ND prong). The article reviews the economics literature, looking at the welfare effect of price discrimination and the interpretation of the ND prong provided by a number of economists. Secondly, the article analyses the case law of the EU Court of Justice on Art. 102(c) TFEU and recent rulings by the German and British courts concerning the scope of the application of the ND prong. A strategy of discrimination in regard to royalty rates may be sanctioned, both under competition and contract law. However, Art. 102(c) requires a higher burden of proof than contract law. As a consequence, it is unsurprising that no case of royalty rate discrimination has ever been sanctioned in Europe as an abuse of dominance. While courts and economists generally agree that the ND prong is applicable only when licensees are “similarly situated,” to date, there is no common understanding of the meaning of this expression. In particular, it is unclear whether, and to what extent, licensees are “similarly situated” if they are not competitors in the downstream market.

Suggested Citation

  • Marco Botta, 2021. "Nondiscrimination in Standard Essential Patents; ND Prong V. Art. 102(C) TFEU," Journal of Competition Law and Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 17(4), pages 947-977.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:jcomle:v:17:y:2021:i:4:p:947-977.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/joclec/nhab011
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:jcomle:v:17:y:2021:i:4:p:947-977.. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/jcle .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.