Competition, IP rights and Technology Transfer Block Exemption

In order to reward and encourage investment and innovation, intellectual property law grants owners of intangible property exclusive exploitation rights. Intellectual property right (IPR) holders therefore have, in principle, the right to control access to (and charge others for use of) their IPRs as well as pursue enforcement of these rights through the courts where otherwise unauthorised use has occurred.

At the same time, exercising such rights may run up against competition law requirements which, broadly speaking, aim to promote open markets and curtail abuse of market power—and, in the EU context, ensure the integration and integrity of the Single Market by removing impediments to cross border trade.

This sub-topic addresses the interface between IPRs and EU competition law and highlights some of the tensions that may arise.

Competition issues

Technology licensing is generally seen as pro-competitive activity—one that leads to increased efficiencies through strengthened incentives to innovate and increased engagement in research and development initiatives (while reducing duplication in such activities). In addition, technology licensing encourages the diffusion of technology and know-how (ie increasing the number of users and suppliers)

To view the latest version of this document and thousands of others like it, sign-in with LexisNexis or register for a free trial.

Powered by Lexis+®
Latest Competition News

Competition weekly highlights—26 February 2026

This week’s edition of Competition weekly highlights includes, from a UK perspective: (1) the CMA’s interim report in relation to its Getty Images/Shutterstock phase 2 investigation, (2) the government’s issuance of a pre-emptive action order following a PIIN in relation to DMGT/Telegraph Media Group, (3) the CMA’s response to DBT’s working paper on options for reform of non-compete clauses in employment contracts, (4) the EU/UK signing an agreement to co-operate closely on competition matters, (5) the Business Secretary announcing that Doug Gurr has been selected as preferred candidate to remain as Chair of the CMA, (6) the CAT’s judgment on a strike-out application and expert evidence in relation to a collective damages action brought by Ad Tech against Google, and (7) a CAT ruling refusing permission to appeal in a claim alleging competition law breaches by Faculty of Advocates Services. This week’s highlights also includes, from an EU perspective: (1) publication by the Commission of a summary of consultation responses on the ongoing review of the FSR, (2) publication by the Commission of consultation responses received to the review of Regulation 1/2003, (3) the Commission launching a consultation on the draft new State aid General Block Exemption Regulation, (4) publication of the European Parliament’s resolution on the Commission’s 2024 Competition Policy report, and (5) the General Court’s judgment dismissing an action challenging the Commission’s refusal of access to DMA designation documents.

View Competition by content type :

Popular documents