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—19 March 2026

This week's edition of Competition weekly highlights includes, from a UK perspective: (1) the CAT makes collective proceedings order granting Vicki Shotbolt permission to commence collective damages action against Valve, (2) the government responds to consultation on proposed reforms to the NSI Act 2021 mandatory notification regime, (3) the CMA publishes letter in response to the Chancellor on pricing pressures and competition in heating oil and road fuel markets, (4) the CMA consults on potential designation of Aldi and Lidl under the Groceries Market Investigation (Controlled Land) Order 2010, (5) the CMA approves slot release agreement in Korean Air/Asiana Airlines merger, and (6) the CMA extends deadline for remedies in Aramark/Entier phase 2 merger investigation. This week's highlights also includes, from an EU perspective: (1) the AG considers Latvian municipality not an ‘undertaking’ under Article 102 TFEU when organising in-house waste management, (2) the AG issues opinion concerning national reference from Italy on binding effect and scope of Euribor cartel findings under Article 101 TFEU, (3) the AG issues opinions in JP Morgan and Crédit Agricole appeals in Euro Interest Rate Derivatives cartel case, (4) the AG’s issues opinion suggesting dismissal of Silgan appeal concerning Commission competence in German metal packaging cartel, (5) the Commission publishes evaluation study to inform revision of Aviation State Aid Guidelines, (6) the Commission adopts new State aid rules to boost the use of more sustainable ways of transport, and (7) the Commission reviews State aid rules for banks in difficulty.

View Competition by content type :

Popular documents