ZWeR 2005, 138
Intellectual Property and Competition Law: The European Development from Magill to IMS Health compared to recent German and US Case Law
On 29th April 2004, the ECJ has rendered its judgment in the highly controversial IMS Health-case. The facts concerned a refusal-to-license-situation in the field of Intellectual Property. The author outlines the development in European refusal-to-deal-case law from the Commercial Solvents-case up to the IMS Health-judgment and compares this latter judgment to recent US and German case law. On this basis, he argues in favour of a different and more economic two-elements-test for refusal-to-license-cases in European competition law. Finally, an outlook is given to future perspectives in European law with particular regard to the Microsoft-case and the decision of the President of the CFI on Interim Measures in this case.
Contents
- I. Introduction
- II. Background: Art. 82 EC Treaty and Intellectual Property Rights in the Case Law of the European Courts
- 1. Renault and Volvo v. Erik Veng
- 2. Magill
- 3. Bronner
- III. The IMS Health-Judgment of the ECJ
- 1. Facts and Procedural Background
- 2. The ECJ's Judgment
- IV. Analysis
- 1. Essential facilities doctrine in European law?
- 2. “New product”/“two markets”-requirement
- 3. Indispensability requirement
- 4. No objective justification
- V. Comparative Law Perspectives: Recent case law from Germany and the US
- 1. US Supreme Court: Verizon v. Trinko
- 2. German Federal Supreme Court: Standard-Spundfass
- VI. Conclusion and Perspectives
- *
- *)Dr. iur., LL.M. (Cambridge). Former Head of Department at the Max-Planck-Institute for Intellectual -Property, Competition and Tax Law, Munich. At present post-doctoral research scholar (Habilitation) of the state of Bavaria at the Max-Planck-Institute. The author would like to thank Dr. Beatriz Conde Gallego and Mark-Oliver Mackenrodt, LL.M. (NYU), Max-Planck-Institute, for the many and highly fruitful discussions on IMS Health, from which this paper has profited a lot. Many good ideas in this paper have emerged in the discussion; all remaining mistakes are of course in the exclusive responsibility of the author.
Der Inhalt dieses Beitrags ist nicht frei verfügbar.
Für Abonnenten ist der Zugang zu Aufsätzen und Rechtsprechung frei.
Sollten Sie über kein Abonnement verfügen, können Sie den gewünschten Beitrag trotzdem kostenpflichtig erwerben:
Erwerben Sie den gewünschten Beitrag kostenpflichtig per Rechnung.
Erwerben Sie den gewünschten Beitrag kostenpflichtig mit PayPal.
