Document Actions
Citation and metadata
Recommended citation
Maryam Pourrahim, Capacity of EU competition law to promote patent pools: A comparative study, 12 (2021) JIPITEC 297 para 1.
Download Citation
Endnote
%0 Journal Article %T Capacity of EU competition law to promote patent pools: A comparative study %A Pourrahim, Maryam %J JIPITEC %D 2021 %V 12 %N 3 %@ 2190-3387 %F pourrahim2021 %X Patent pools have proved to offer significant efficiency to both licensors and licensees as they provide a one-stop-shop for a patents package, reduce transaction costs, and improve access to Standard Essential Patents (SEPs). The presented study examines whether, how and to what extend the EU competition law can promote patent pooling as a recommended mechanism for licensing SEPs. To reach this purpose, a brief review of pooling history shows how antitrust policy evolved with regard to pool establishment and operation. Patent pools in the modern era are connected to standardised technologies, and display tendency to product-based technologies rather than standard-based pooling. As a research methodology, a comparative analysis between the US and the EU antitrust laws shows that, although the procedural frameworks in the US contain only soft law, pooling there has undergone a more stable and straightforward treatment thanks to the publicly available Business Review Letters (BRLs) than in the EU which lacks a thorough assessment template. The presented substantive analysis illustrates how the two systems assess pooling's potential anti-competitive effects. Despite several similarities in their evaluation, the US generally shows a slightly more lenient approach toward patent pools. Amongst the differences, the strict EU approach regarding inclusion of non-essential/substitute patents into a pool is criticised. Each paper section is concluded by a takeaway that summarises and discusses the outcomes. %L 340 %K antitrust %K competition law %K licensing %K patent pools %K standard essential patents %U http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0009-29-53424 %P 297-316Download
Bibtex
@Article{pourrahim2021,
author = "Pourrahim, Maryam",
title = "Capacity of EU competition law to promote patent pools: A comparative study",
journal = "JIPITEC",
year = "2021",
volume = "12",
number = "3",
pages = "297--316",
keywords = "antitrust; competition law; licensing; patent pools; standard essential patents",
abstract = "Patent pools have proved to offer significant efficiency to both licensors and licensees as they provide a one-stop-shop for a patents package, reduce transaction costs, and improve access to Standard Essential Patents (SEPs). The presented study examines whether, how and to what extend the EU competition law can promote patent pooling as a recommended mechanism for licensing SEPs. To reach this purpose, a brief review of pooling history shows how antitrust policy evolved with regard to pool establishment and operation. Patent pools in the modern era are connected to standardised technologies, and display tendency to product-based technologies rather than standard-based pooling. As a research methodology, a comparative analysis between the US and the EU antitrust laws shows that, although the procedural frameworks in the US contain only soft law, pooling there has undergone a more stable and straightforward treatment thanks to the publicly available Business Review Letters (BRLs) than in the EU which lacks a thorough assessment template. The presented substantive analysis illustrates how the two systems assess pooling's potential anti-competitive effects. Despite several similarities in their evaluation, the US generally shows a slightly more lenient approach toward patent pools. Amongst the differences, the strict EU approach regarding inclusion of non-essential/substitute patents into a pool is criticised. Each paper section is concluded by a takeaway that summarises and discusses the outcomes.",
issn = "2190-3387",
url = "http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0009-29-53424"
}
Download
RIS
TY - JOUR AU - Pourrahim, Maryam PY - 2021 DA - 2021// TI - Capacity of EU competition law to promote patent pools: A comparative study JO - JIPITEC SP - 297 EP - 316 VL - 12 IS - 3 KW - antitrust KW - competition law KW - licensing KW - patent pools KW - standard essential patents AB - Patent pools have proved to offer significant efficiency to both licensors and licensees as they provide a one-stop-shop for a patents package, reduce transaction costs, and improve access to Standard Essential Patents (SEPs). The presented study examines whether, how and to what extend the EU competition law can promote patent pooling as a recommended mechanism for licensing SEPs. To reach this purpose, a brief review of pooling history shows how antitrust policy evolved with regard to pool establishment and operation. Patent pools in the modern era are connected to standardised technologies, and display tendency to product-based technologies rather than standard-based pooling. As a research methodology, a comparative analysis between the US and the EU antitrust laws shows that, although the procedural frameworks in the US contain only soft law, pooling there has undergone a more stable and straightforward treatment thanks to the publicly available Business Review Letters (BRLs) than in the EU which lacks a thorough assessment template. The presented substantive analysis illustrates how the two systems assess pooling's potential anti-competitive effects. Despite several similarities in their evaluation, the US generally shows a slightly more lenient approach toward patent pools. Amongst the differences, the strict EU approach regarding inclusion of non-essential/substitute patents into a pool is criticised. Each paper section is concluded by a takeaway that summarises and discusses the outcomes. SN - 2190-3387 UR - http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0009-29-53424 ID - pourrahim2021 ER -Download
Wordbib
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?> <b:Sources SelectedStyle="" xmlns:b="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/bibliography" xmlns="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/bibliography" > <b:Source> <b:Tag>pourrahim2021</b:Tag> <b:SourceType>ArticleInAPeriodical</b:SourceType> <b:Year>2021</b:Year> <b:PeriodicalTitle>JIPITEC</b:PeriodicalTitle> <b:Volume>12</b:Volume> <b:Issue>3</b:Issue> <b:Url>http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0009-29-53424</b:Url> <b:Pages>297-316</b:Pages> <b:Author> <b:Author><b:NameList> <b:Person><b:Last>Pourrahim</b:Last><b:First>Maryam</b:First></b:Person> </b:NameList></b:Author> </b:Author> <b:Title>Capacity of EU competition law to promote patent pools: A comparative study</b:Title> <b:Comments>Patent pools have proved to offer significant efficiency to both licensors and licensees as they provide a one-stop-shop for a patents package, reduce transaction costs, and improve access to Standard Essential Patents (SEPs). The presented study examines whether, how and to what extend the EU competition law can promote patent pooling as a recommended mechanism for licensing SEPs. To reach this purpose, a brief review of pooling history shows how antitrust policy evolved with regard to pool establishment and operation. Patent pools in the modern era are connected to standardised technologies, and display tendency to product-based technologies rather than standard-based pooling. As a research methodology, a comparative analysis between the US and the EU antitrust laws shows that, although the procedural frameworks in the US contain only soft law, pooling there has undergone a more stable and straightforward treatment thanks to the publicly available Business Review Letters (BRLs) than in the EU which lacks a thorough assessment template. The presented substantive analysis illustrates how the two systems assess pooling's potential anti-competitive effects. Despite several similarities in their evaluation, the US generally shows a slightly more lenient approach toward patent pools. Amongst the differences, the strict EU approach regarding inclusion of non-essential/substitute patents into a pool is criticised. Each paper section is concluded by a takeaway that summarises and discusses the outcomes.</b:Comments> </b:Source> </b:Sources>Download
ISI
PT Journal AU Pourrahim, M TI Capacity of EU competition law to promote patent pools: A comparative study SO JIPITEC PY 2021 BP 297 EP 316 VL 12 IS 3 DE antitrust; competition law; licensing; patent pools; standard essential patents AB Patent pools have proved to offer significant efficiency to both licensors and licensees as they provide a one-stop-shop for a patents package, reduce transaction costs, and improve access to Standard Essential Patents (SEPs). The presented study examines whether, how and to what extend the EU competition law can promote patent pooling as a recommended mechanism for licensing SEPs. To reach this purpose, a brief review of pooling history shows how antitrust policy evolved with regard to pool establishment and operation. Patent pools in the modern era are connected to standardised technologies, and display tendency to product-based technologies rather than standard-based pooling. As a research methodology, a comparative analysis between the US and the EU antitrust laws shows that, although the procedural frameworks in the US contain only soft law, pooling there has undergone a more stable and straightforward treatment thanks to the publicly available Business Review Letters (BRLs) than in the EU which lacks a thorough assessment template. The presented substantive analysis illustrates how the two systems assess pooling's potential anti-competitive effects. Despite several similarities in their evaluation, the US generally shows a slightly more lenient approach toward patent pools. Amongst the differences, the strict EU approach regarding inclusion of non-essential/substitute patents into a pool is criticised. Each paper section is concluded by a takeaway that summarises and discusses the outcomes. ERDownload
Mods
<mods>
<titleInfo>
<title>Capacity of EU competition law to promote patent pools: A comparative study</title>
</titleInfo>
<name type="personal">
<namePart type="family">Pourrahim</namePart>
<namePart type="given">Maryam</namePart>
</name>
<abstract>Patent pools have proved to offer significant efficiency to both licensors and licensees as they provide a one-stop-shop for a patents package, reduce transaction costs, and improve access to Standard Essential Patents (SEPs). The presented study examines whether, how and to what extend the EU competition law can promote patent pooling as a recommended mechanism for licensing SEPs. To reach this purpose, a brief review of pooling history shows how antitrust policy evolved with regard to pool establishment and operation. Patent pools in the modern era are connected to standardised technologies, and display tendency to product-based technologies rather than standard-based pooling. As a research methodology, a comparative analysis between the US and the EU antitrust laws shows that, although the procedural frameworks in the US contain only soft law, pooling there has undergone a more stable and straightforward treatment thanks to the publicly available Business Review Letters (BRLs) than in the EU which lacks a thorough assessment template. The presented substantive analysis illustrates how the two systems assess pooling's potential anti-competitive effects. Despite several similarities in their evaluation, the US generally shows a slightly more lenient approach toward patent pools. Amongst the differences, the strict EU approach regarding inclusion of non-essential/substitute patents into a pool is criticised. Each paper section is concluded by a takeaway that summarises and discusses the outcomes.</abstract>
<subject>
<topic>antitrust</topic>
<topic>competition law</topic>
<topic>licensing</topic>
<topic>patent pools</topic>
<topic>standard essential patents</topic>
</subject>
<classification authority="ddc">340</classification>
<relatedItem type="host">
<genre authority="marcgt">periodical</genre>
<genre>academic journal</genre>
<titleInfo>
<title>JIPITEC</title>
</titleInfo>
<part>
<detail type="volume">
<number>12</number>
</detail>
<detail type="issue">
<number>3</number>
</detail>
<date>2021</date>
<extent unit="page">
<start>297</start>
<end>316</end>
</extent>
</part>
</relatedItem>
<identifier type="issn">2190-3387</identifier>
<identifier type="urn">urn:nbn:de:0009-29-53424</identifier>
<identifier type="uri">http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0009-29-53424</identifier>
<identifier type="citekey">pourrahim2021</identifier>
</mods>
Download
Full Metadata
| Bibliographic Citation | Journal of intellectual property, information technology and electronic commerce law 12 (2021) 3 |
|---|---|
| Title |
Capacity of EU competition law to promote patent pools: A comparative study (eng) |
| Author | Maryam Pourrahim |
| Language | eng |
| Abstract | Patent pools have proved to offer significant efficiency to both licensors and licensees as they provide a one-stop-shop for a patents package, reduce transaction costs, and improve access to Standard Essential Patents (SEPs). The presented study examines whether, how and to what extend the EU competition law can promote patent pooling as a recommended mechanism for licensing SEPs. To reach this purpose, a brief review of pooling history shows how antitrust policy evolved with regard to pool establishment and operation. Patent pools in the modern era are connected to standardised technologies, and display tendency to product-based technologies rather than standard-based pooling. As a research methodology, a comparative analysis between the US and the EU antitrust laws shows that, although the procedural frameworks in the US contain only soft law, pooling there has undergone a more stable and straightforward treatment thanks to the publicly available Business Review Letters (BRLs) than in the EU which lacks a thorough assessment template. The presented substantive analysis illustrates how the two systems assess pooling's potential anti-competitive effects. Despite several similarities in their evaluation, the US generally shows a slightly more lenient approach toward patent pools. Amongst the differences, the strict EU approach regarding inclusion of non-essential/substitute patents into a pool is criticised. Each paper section is concluded by a takeaway that summarises and discusses the outcomes. |
| Subject | antitrust, competition law, licensing, patent pools, standard essential patents |
| DDC | 340 |
| Rights | DPPL |
| URN: | urn:nbn:de:0009-29-53424 |
