Günhan GÖNÜL

4619

FİKRİ MÜLKİYET HAKLARI İLE AVRUPA BİRLİĞİ’NİN İŞLEYİŞİNE DAİR ANTLAŞMA’NIN 102. MADDESİ ARASINDAKİ İLİŞKİ

Bu makale, Avrupa Birliği’nin İşleyişine Dair Antlaşma’nın 102. maddesinde düzenlenen hâkim durumun kötüye kullanılması halleri ile fikri mülkiyet haklarının kesiştiği durumlar için Avrupa Birliği Adalet Divanının geliştirmiş olduğu içtihada ilişkin açıklamalarda bulunmaktadır. Bu bağlamda öncelikle, fikri mülkiyet hukuku ile rekabet hukuku arasındaki ilişkinin çatışma mı yoksa bütünsellik mi teşkil ettiği incelenmiştir. Ardından içtihadın iki ana bölümden oluştuğu tespiti yapılmıştır. Buna göre ilk bölüm, çoğu sözleşme yapmayı reddetme biçiminde tezahür eden ve kural olarak fikri mülkiyet haklarına başvurmanın hâkim durumun kötüye kullanılması anlamına gelmeyeceği, ancak istisnai şartlar altında kötüye kullanmanın gerçekleşebileceği klasik fikri mülkiyet-rekabet hukuku çakışmasının yaşandığı davalardan oluşmaktadır. Öte yandan, fikri mülkiyet hak sahiplerinin haklarını kullanmada yeni metotlar geliştirmelerine paralel olarak, Avrupa Birliği Adalet Divanı içtihatlarının diğer bölümünü yeni kötüye kullanma türleri teşkil etmektedir. İlgili başlık altında, bu kötüye kullanma türleri belirtilmiş ve önemli davalar ile bu davaların geleceğe yönelik olası sonuçları açıklanmıştır. Son olarak, hukuki çarelere ilişkin olarak, ilk bölümdeki davalar için, fikri mülkiyet haklarını göz ardı etmemeye özen göstererek karar verilmesi tavsiye edilmektedir. İkinci bölümde öngörülen hukuki çarelere ilişkin olarak ise, bu kötüye kullanma türleri yeni ticari stratejiler nedeniyle biçim değiştirir nitelikte olduğundan yetkililer aceleci ve tutarsız davranmamaya dikkat etmelidir
Anahtar Kelimeler:

Hâkim Durumun Kötüye Kullanılması, Zorunlu Lisanslama, Sözleşme Yapmayı Reddetme, Fikri Mülkiyet Haklarının Kötüye Kullanımı, AstraZeneca

THE INTERFACE BETWEEN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS AND ARTICLE 102 OF THE TREATY ON THE FUNCTIONING OF THE EUROPEAN UNION

This article aims to provide an overview of the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union in relation to the intersection of intellectual property rights and the abuse of dominant position under Article 102 of Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. First, the relationship between intellectual property law and competition law is evaluated whether there is tension or complementarity. Second, the case law is argued to show two segments: The first segment consists of the classic intellectual property-competition law intersection cases where the majority of the cases deal with refusal to license and the principle is that the exercise of intellectual property rights does not constitute abuse of dominance in itself; however, under exceptional circumstances, abuse may be found. On the other hand, the second segment of the case law shows that; in parallel to the intellectual property right holders’ new methods to exploit their intellectual property rights, new types of abusive conduct have arisen. In the relevant section, these abuses are listed and landmark cases and their future implications are provided. Finally, regarding the remedies, for the first segment, they are recommended to be decided cautiously so as not to undermine IPRs. For the second segment, it has been remarked that since these abuse types are mutant due to new commercial strategies, the authorities should not be hasty and inconsistent
Keywords:

Abuse of Dominant Position, Compulsory Licensing, Refusal to License, Misuse of IPRs, AstraZeneca,

PDF

___

  • ANDERMAN, S. (2011), “The IP and Competition Interface: New Developments”, S. Anderman and A. Ezrachi (eds.), in Intellectual Property and Competition Law: New Frontiers, Oxford University Press, Oxford, p. 3-25.
  • ANDERMAN, S. and H. SCHMIDT (2007), “EC Competition Policy and IPRs”, S. Anderman (ed.), in The Interface Between Intellectual Property Rights and Competition Policy, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, p. 37-124.
  • ANDERMAN, S. and H. SCHMIDT (2011), EU Competition Law and Intellectual Property Rights: Regulation of Innovation, Second Edition, Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK.
  • AU, T. H. (2012), “Anti-Competitive Tying and Bundling Arrangements in the Smartphone Industry”, Stanford Technology Law Review, No:16(1), p. 188-228.
  • AYRES, I. and P. KLEMPERER (1999), “Limiting Patentees’ Market Power Without Reducing Innovation Incentives: The Perverse Benefits of Uncertainty and Non-Injunctive Remedies”, http://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/ viewcontent.cgi?article=2255&context=fss_papers, Date Accessed: 10.03.2015.
  • BOCHECK, R. (2012), “Intellectual Property Rights & Compulsory Licensing: The Case of Pharmaceuticals in Emerging Markets”, World Competition, No:35(4), p. 621-634.
  • BORK, R. H (1978), The Antitrust Paradox: A Policy at War with Itself, Free Press, New York, US.
  • DENOZZA, F. (2012), “Intellectual Property and Refusal to Deal: “Ad Hoc” versus “Categorical Balancing””, G. Caggiano, G. Muscolo and M. Tavassi (eds.), in Competition Law and Intellectual Property: A European Perspective, Walters Kluwer, Croydon, p. 259-281.
  • DREXL, J. (2008), “Is there a “more economic approach” to intellectual property and competition law?”, J. Drexl (ed.), in Research Handbook on Intellectual Property and Competition Law, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, p. 27-53.
  • EVANS, D. S. and K. N. HYLTON (2008), “The Lawful Acquisition and Exercise of Monopoly Power and Its Implications for the Objectives of Antitrust”, Competition Policy International, No:4(2), p. 203-227.
  • EZRACHI, A. (2011), “Competition Law Enforcement and Refusal to License: The Changing Boundaries of Article 102 TFEU”, S. Anderman and A. Ezrachi (eds.), in Intellectual Property and Competition Law: New Frontiers, Oxford University Press, Oxford, p. 95-112.
  • FLANAGAN, A., F. GHEZZI and M. MONTAGNANI (2010), “The Search for EU Boundaries: IPR Exercise and Enforcement as ‘Misuse’”, A. Flanagan and M. Montagnani (eds.), in Intellectual Property Law: Economic and Social Justice Perspectives, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, p. 112-143.
  • GALLEGIO, B. C. (2008), “Unilateral refusal to license indispensable intellectual property rights – US and EU approaches”, J. Drexl (ed), in Research Handbook on Intellectual Property and Competition Law, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, p. 215-238.
  • GHIDI, G. (2012), “The Bride and the Groom. On the Intersection between Intellectual Property and Antitrust Law”, G. Caggiano, G. Muscolo and M. Tavassi (eds.), in Competition Law and Intellectual Property: A European Perspective, Walters Kluwer, Croydon, p. 27-52.
  • GÜRZUMAR, O. B. (2006), Zorunlu Unsur Doktrinine Dayalı Sözleşme Yapma Yükümlülüğü, Seçkin, Ankara, Türkiye.
  • HEINEMANN, A. (2008), “The contestability of IP protected markets”, J. Drexl (ed.), in Research Handbook on Intellectual Property and Competition Law, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, p.54-79.
  • HULL, D. W. (2010), “The AstraZeneca Judgment: Implications for IP and Regulatory Strategies”, Journal of European Competition Law & Practice, No:1(6), p. 500-504.
  • KALLAUGHER, J. (2011), “Existence, Exercise, and Exceptional Circumstances: the Limited Scope for a More Economic Approach to IP Issues under Article 102 TFEU”, S. Anderman and A. Ezrachi (eds.), in Intellectual Property and Competition Law: New Frontiers, Oxford University Press, Oxford, p.113-139.
  • KANTER, D. (2006), “IP and Compulsory Licensing On Both Sides of the Atlantic – An Appropriate Antitrust Remedy or a Cutback on Innovation?”, http:// www.whitecase.com/files/Publication/fecf8cb1-714e-4b4d-8f47-b181c643e9d5/ Presentation/PublicationAttachment/87f75f2f-4081-44d2-9224-b5f8d766198a/ article_kanter_ip%20and%20compulsory%20licensing.PDF, Date Accessed: 10.03.2015.
  • LESLIE, C. R. (2009), “Antitrust and patent Law as Component Parts of Innovation Policy”, http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2062428, Date Accessed: 10.03.2015.
  • MAGGLIOLINO, M. and M. L. MONTAGNANI (2011), “Astrazeneca’s Abuse of IPR-Related Procedures: A Hypothesis of Anti-Trust Offence, Abuse of Rights, and IPR Misuse”, World Competition, No:34(2), p. 245-259.
  • MARSDEN, P. (2007a), “Microsoft v. Commission - With Great Power Comes Great Responsibility”, Competition Law Insight, p. 3-5.
  • MARSDEN, P. (2007b), “Unfair and Unreasonable”, Competition Law Insight, p. 3-4.
  • MARSDEN, P. (2008), “Article 82 And Structural Remedies After Microsoft”, http://www.biicl.org/files/3554_art_82_and_structural_remedies_(marsden).pdf, Date Accessed: 10.03.2015.
  • MARSDEN, P. (2009), “Checks and Balances: EU Competition Law and the Rule of Law”, Competition Law International, No:5(1), p.24-28.
  • MARSDEN, P. and P. WHELAN (2007), “When Markets are Failing (Part 1)”, Competition Law Insight, p. 6-8.
  • MAZZIOTTI, G. (2005), “Did Apple’s refusal to license proprietary information enabling interoperability with its iPod music player constitute an abuse under Article 82 of the EC Treaty?”, http://escholarship.org/uc/item/7sv460b7, Date Accessed: 10.03.2015.
  • MONTI, G. (2004), “Article 82 EC and New Economy Markets”, C. Graham and F. Smith (eds.), in Competition Regulation and the New Economy, Hart Publishing, Oxford, p.17-54.
  • MONTI, G. (2006), “The Concept of Dominance in Article 82”, http:// www.lse.ac.uk/collections/law/staff%20publications%20full%20text/monti/ ECJdominancepaper.pdf, Date Accessed: 10.03.2015.
  • OTTAVIANO, I. (2012), “Industrial Property and Abuse of Dominant Position in the Pharmaceutical Market: Some Thoughts on the AstraZeneca Judgment of the EU General Court”, G. Caggiano, G. Muscolo and M. Tavassi (eds.), in Competition Law and Intellectual Property: A European Perspective, Walters Kluwer, Croydon, p. 191-201.
  • PATTERSON, M. R. (2008), “Intellectual Property and sources of Market Power”, I. Govaere and J. Ullrich (eds.), in Intellectual Property, Market Power and the Public Interest, College of Europe Studies, Brussels, No:8, p. 35-58.
  • PERITZ, J. R. R. (2011), “Competition within Intellectual Property Regimes: The Instance of Patent Rights”, S. Anderman and A. Ezrachi (eds.), in Intellectual Property and Competition Law: New Frontiers, Oxford University Press, Oxford, p. 27-60.
  • POSNER, R. A. (2001), “Antitrust in the New Economy”, Antitrust Law Journal, No:68(3), p. 925-943.
  • SIRAGUSA, M. (2012), “The EU Pharmaceutical Sector Inquiry. New Forms of Abuse and Article 102 TFEU”, G. Caggiano, G. Muscolo and M. Tavassi (eds.), in Competition Law and Intellectual Property: A European Perspective, Walters Kluwer, Croydon, p. 177-189.
  • SIRAGUSA, M. and G. FAELLA (2013), “Trends and Problems of the Antitrust of the Future”, E.A. Raffaelli (ed.), in Antitrust between EU and national law X = Antitrust fra diritto nazionale e diritto dell’Unione europea, Bruylant, Bruxelles, p.273-304.
  • SUBIOTTO, QC R., F. MALONE, D. R. LITTLE, C. DE BROSSES and S. SUCIU (2011), “Recent EU Case Law Developments: Article 102 TFEU”, Journal of European Competition Law & Practice, No:2(2), p. 138-147.
  • TROBERG, M. C. (2011), “Differences between the US and the EU in Antitrust Review of Intellectual Property: A Comparative Analysis of the Essential Facilities Doctrine”, http://www.roschier.com/sites/default/files/Differences%20 between%20the%20US%20and%20the%20EU.pdf, Date Accessed: 10.03.2015. TURNER, J. D. C. (2010), Intellectual Property and EU Competition Law, Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK.
  • VESTERDORF, B. (2008), “Article 82 EC: Where Do We Stand After the Microsoft Judgment?”, Global Antitrust Review ICC Annual Competition Law and Policy Lecture, http://www.icc.qmul.ac.uk/GAR/Vesterdorf.pdf, Date Accessed: 10.03.2015.
  • WHISH, R. and D. BAILEY (2012), Competition Law, Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK. JURISPRUDENCE
  • ADVOCATE GENERAL OPINION
  • Opinion of AG Tizzano in Case C-418/01, IMS v NDC, delivered on 2 October 2003. COMMISSION
  • Commission Decision of 18 April 1984, IV/30.849 - IBM personal computer
  • Commission Decision of 24 March 2004, COMP/C3/37.792 - Microsoft
  • Commission Decision of 9 December 2009, COMP/38.636 - Rambus
  • EUROPEAN COURT OF JUSTICE
  • Joined Cases 6779 and 7/79 Commercial Solvents v Commission [1974] ECR 223.
  • Case 24/67 Parke Davis v Probel [1968] ECR-55.
  • Case 53/87 CICRA et Maxicar v Renault [1988] ECR 6039.
  • Case 238/87 Volvo v Veng (UK) Ltd [1988] ECR 6211.
  • Case C-333/94P Tetra Pak International SA v Commission (Tetra Pak II) [1996] ECR I-5951.
  • Case C-241-242/91P Radio Telefis Eireann v Commission (Magill) [1995] ECR 1-743.
  • Case C-7/97, Oscar Bronner GmbH & Co KG v. Mediaprint Zeitungs- und Zeitschriftenverlag GbmH [1988] ECR I-7791.
  • Case C-418-01 IMS Health GmbH & Co OHG v NDC Health GmbH & Co KG [2004] ECR I-5039.
  • Case C-457/10 AstraZeneca v. Commission [2012] CJE/12/158. GENERAL COURT
  • (since the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon, former Court of First Instance) Case T-30/89 Hilti AG v. Commission, [1991] ECR II-1439.
  • Case T-51/89 Tetra Pak Rausing v Commission [1990] ECR II-309.
  • Case T-48/04 Qualcomm v. Commission [2009] ECR II-2029.
  • Case T-201/04 Microsoft v. Commission [2007] ECR II-000.
  • INSTITUTIONAL SOURCES
  • Commission XIth Report on Competition Policy (1981), http://ec.europa. eu/competition/publications/annual_report/ar_1981_en.pdf, Date Accessed: 10.03.2015.
  • Commission Communication, Guidance on the Commission’s Enforcement Priorities in Applying Article 82 of the Treaty to the Abusive Exclusionary Conduct by Dominant Undertakings [2009] OJ C 45/02.
  • Commission MEMO/07/389, 1 October 2007, http://europa.eu/rapid/press- release_MEMO-07-389_en.htm, Date Accessed: 10.03.2015.
  • Commission MEMO/09/516, 24 November 2009, http://europa.eu/rapid/press- release_MEMO-09-516_en.htm, Date Accessed: 10.03.2015.
  • Commission Pharmaceutical Sector Inquiry Report (DG Competition Staff Working Document) dated 8 July 2009, and the Commission Communication (executive summary), http://ec.europa.eu/competition/sectors/pharmaceuticals/ inquiry/staff_working_paper_part1.pdf and http://ec.europa.eu/competition/ sectors/pharmaceuticals/inquiry/communication_en.pdf, 10.03.2015. Date Accessed
Rekabet Dergisi-Cover
  • ISSN: 1302-552X
  • Yayın Aralığı: Yılda 5 Sayı
  • Başlangıç: 2000
  • Yayıncı: Rekabet Kurumu
Arşiv
Sayıdaki Diğer Makaleler

FİKRİ MÜLKİYET HAKLARI İLE AVRUPA BİRLİĞİ’NİN İŞLEYİŞİNE DAİR ANTLAŞMA’NIN 102. MADDESİ ARASINDAKİ İLİŞKİ

Günhan GÖNÜL