This Glossary matches the list of keywords used by Concurrences search engine. Each keyword is automatically updated by the most recent EU and national case laws from the e-Competitions Bulletin and Concurrences Review. The definitions are excerpt from DG COMP’s Glossary of terms used in EU competition policy (© European Union, 2002) and the OECD’s Glossary of industrial organisation economics and competition law (© OECD, 1993).

Standard-Essential Patent (SEP)

Standards frequently make reference to technologies that are protected by patents. A patent that protects technology essential to a standard is called a standard-essential patent. It is impossible to manufacture standard-compliant products such as smartphones or tablets without using technologies covered by one or more SEPs. SEPs are different from patents that are not essential to a standard (non-SEPs), such as design patents, for example, which protect the design features of an invention. This is because, generally, companies can invent alternative solutions that do not infringe a non-SEP (whereas they cannot design around a SEP). For example the "slide to unlock" technology is covered by a non-SEP. Most smartphone manufacturers were able to develop different technologies for unlocking a smartphone screen which do not infringe the "slide to unlock" patent. This would not have been possible in the case of a SEP. There are thousands of SEPs reading on technologies implemented in various standards set by the SSOs. For example, the total number of SEPs declared to ETSI is 155,4748. More than 23,500 patents have been declared essential to the GSM and the "3G"or UMTS standards developed by ETSI9. These standards need to be implemented in virtually all smartphones and tablets sold in Europe. Given their essentiality to a standard, obviously SEPs are important for companies. They are also litigated more often than non-SEPs. (...) In the telecommunication sector, there was a noticeable surge in high profile patent litigation involving many important industry players such as Apple, Motorola, Samsung, Google and Microsoft. But as shown in the table below, litigation on the basis of SEPs also happens in many other industries. © European Commission

On this topic see the special issue "Standard-Essential Patents and Competition Law: An overview of EU and national case law"

Related EU and national case law

Eric Grannon, Alison Hanstead, Adam Acosta The US FTC publishes its annual report on pharmaceutical patent settlements

3 December 2020

On December 3, 2020, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) published its annual report on pharmaceutical patent settlements filed with the FTC under the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003 (MMA)—its fourth annual review since the Supreme Court’s seminal decision in (...)

Peter L’Ecluse, Catherine Longeval, Koen T’Syen The EU Commission fines two pharmaceutical companies for "pay-for-delay" patent settlement agreement (Cephalon / Teva)

26 November 2020

On 26 November 2020, the European Commission (the Commission) brought to an end a long running competition case by finding against Cephalon and Teva on account of a “pay-for-delay” patent settlement agreement involving modafinil, the active substance of a sleeping disorder medicine (see, attached (...)

Katharina Bongs The Regional Court of Düsseldorf refers questions regarding the licensing of standard essential patents in multi-layered supply chains to the EU Court of Justice (Nokia / Daimler)

26 November 2020

On 26 November 2020, the Regional Court of Düsseldorf (“Düsseldorf Court”) decided to request a preliminary ruling from the Court of Justice of the European Union (“ECJ”) in patent infringement proceedings involving Nokia and Daimler. The questions give the ECJ the opportunity to offer guidance on (...)

Lars Mesenbrink, Jay Jurata, Julius Schradin The Regional Court of Düsseldorf questions the EU Court of Justice on standard essential patents licensing in supply chains (Nokia / Daimler)

26 November 2020

In a decision of November 26, 2020 in a patent infringement case of Nokia Technologies Oy against Daimler AG, the Düsseldorf Regional Court (file number 4c O 17/19) referred several questions to the European Court of Justice (ECJ) regarding the licensing of standard essential patents (SEPs) (...)

Martin Sura, Elena Wiese The EU Commission adopts an action plan for intellectual property to promote recovery and resilience

25 November 2020

On November 25, 2020, the EU Commission adopted an action plan for intellectual property to promote recovery and resilience in the EU – its plan for a new IP strategy. The focus is not only on the protection of, but the access to innovation. Companies from all sectors have realized that in this (...)

Michael A. Carrier The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reverses a judgment that upheld “skinny labels” and allowed a generic to launch on uses not covered by a patent (GlaxoSmithKline / Teva)

2 October 2020

On October 2, 2020, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit vacated a district court’s judgment in favor of defendant Teva in a case involving “skinny labels.” GlaxoSmithKline LLC v. Teva Pharm. USA, Inc., 976 F.3d 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2020). When a drug can be used to treat multiple (...)

US Federal Trade Commission The US FTC requests rehearing en banc by the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in the case of global semiconductor company’s standard-essential patent licensing practices (Qualcomm)

25 September 2020

FTC Requests Rehearing En Banc of Qualcomm Appeals Panel Decision* The Federal Trade Commission today filed a petition with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit requesting rehearing en banc of the August 11, 2020, decision of a panel of that court in the matter of FTC v. Qualcomm (...)

Katharina Bongs, Peter L’Ecluse The Regional Court of Munich rules in favor of an electronic manufacturer in standard essential patent proceeding (Sharp / Daimler)

10 September 2020

On 10 September 2020, the Regional Court of Munich (“Munich Court”) ruled in favour of Sharp that Daimler had infringed a standard essential patent (“SEP”) of Sharp. Sharp is the patent holder of EP 2667676B1 which is standard essential for the Long-Term Evolution (“LTE”) telecommunications (...)

Nicolas Charbit, Sonia Ahmad Albert A. Foer Liber Amicorum

8 September 2020

At a time of reckoning for the future of antitrust, this Liber Amicorum brings together a diverse collection of today’s leading thinkers to pay tribute to Albert Allen (Bert) Foer, founder of the American Antitrust Institute (AAI). In doing so, it illustrates the intellectual landscape of the (...)

Ian Moss, Katie McConnell, Paul Brown The UK Supreme Court hands down a judgement between a software and a telecommunication company, providing answers on questions concerning the English Courts’ approach to FRAND disputes (Unwired Planet / Huawei)

26 August 2020

The UK Supreme Court has handed down its long-awaited judgment in the Unwired Planet v Huawei and Conversant v Huawei & ZTE proceedings ([2020] UKSC 37), providing answers on several key questions concerning the English Courts’ approach to FRAND disputes. In a unanimous judgment, the (...)

Steve Ross The UK Supreme Court rules in a licence dispute between a software and a telecommunication company and clarifies the English Courts’ approach to FRAND royalty cases (Unwired Planet / Huawei)

26 August 2020

On 26 August 2020, the UK Supreme Court issued a judgment in a licence dispute involving Standard Essential Patents (“SEPs”) pitting Unwired Planet, a US based patent assertion entity, against Huawei, a Chinese telecommunications company that produces smartphones. Unwired Planet brought an (...)

Pat Treacy, Edwin Bond The UK Supreme Court confirms that English courts may set the terms of global licences to portfolios of standard essential patents (Unwired Planet / Huawei)

26 August 2020

English courts given green light to set terms of global FRAND licences* On 26 August 2020, the UK Supreme Court (UKSC) gave its eagerly awaited judgment in Unwired Planet v Huawei and Conversant v Huawei & ZTE. In a unanimous policy-driven decision, the Court dismissed the appeals brought (...)

Paul Lugard, Daniel Vasbeck The UK Supreme Court confirms that it is possible to set global FRAND rates and global licences to portfolios of standard essential patents (Unwired Planet / Huawei)

26 August 2020

The U.K. Supreme Court’s 26 August ruling on standard-essential patents (SEPs) is the latest in a series of recent decisions that are likely to have a profound effect on FRAND license negotiations across the globe, in particular for the next generation 4G and 5G mobile telecommunication (...)

Katharina Bongs The Mannheim Regional Court grants injunctive relief to a telecommunication provider and clarifies the application of FRAND in the supply chain (Daimler / Nokia)

18 August 2020

According to a press release of the Mannheim Regional Court of 18 August 2020 in the matter Nokia v Daimler, the Regional Court of Mannheim (the “Court”) ruled in favour of Nokia that Daimler had infringed Nokia’s patent and could not invoke a FRAND objection. The Court held that Daimler and a (...)

Joseph M. Miller, Michael T. Renaud, Richard M. Gervase Jr., Tinny Song The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit rules that there is no antitrust violation in a multinational semiconductor company’s licensing of its standard-essential patents (Qualcomm)

11 August 2020

Ninth Circuit Reverses FTC Win in FTC v. Qualcomm, Finding No Antitrust Violations from Qualcomm’s Licensing of its Standard-Essential Patents* In a reversal that came as no surprise to many observers, on Tuesday, August 11, 2020, a unanimous panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth (...)

Matthew Martino, Tara L. Reinhart, Steven C. Sunshine, Julia K. York The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit strikes down sweeping injunction against semiconductor company and reins in expansive interpretation of Sherman Act (Qualcomm)

11 August 2020

On August 11, 2020, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit decisively reversed the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC or Commission) controversial district court win challenging Qualcomm’s licensing practices. In rejecting every aspect of the lower court’s decision, the Ninth Circuit panel (...)

Logan M. Breed, Edith Ramirez, Suparna Reddy, Labeat Rrahmani The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit overturns a ruling finding that a semiconductor company’s licensing practice abused dominant position (Qualcomm)

11 August 2020

On 11 August 2020, a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (“Ninth Circuit”), in a unanimous opinion by Judge Callahan, reversed the U.S. Federal Trade Commission’s (“FTC’s”) win in the district court against Qualcomm Inc. (“Qualcomm”) and upheld Qualcomm’s licensing practices, (...)

Maurits Dolmans, Daniel P. Culley, David Herrington, Jessica Hollis, Alexandra Theobald The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reverses a ruling finding that a semiconductor company abuses its dominant position regarding its standard-essential patents (Qualcomm)

11 August 2020

On August 11, 2020, a Ninth Circuit panel reversed the District Court for the Northern District of California’s judgment in FTC v. Qualcomm, Inc. The panel held that Qualcomm’s conduct—(a) refusing to license its standards essential patents (SEPs) to rival chipset manufacturers; (b) refusing to (...)

Walid Chaiehloudj USA: The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reverses the decision of the Northern District Court of California in the smartphone chip case (Qualcomm)

11 August 2020

Thunderclap in the United States! The ruling by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals completely overturns the ruling issued a few months earlier by the Northern District Court of California in the Qualcomm case(FTC v. Qualcomm, No. 17-cv-00220, Dkt. 1490 (N.D. Cal. May 21, 2019)). The FTC’s (...)

Claire Jeffs, Nele Dhondt Dominance & Monopolization Research Program: An overview of EU and national case law

25 June 2020

The number of jurisdictions across the globe with a competition law regime has increased dramatically over the last couple of decades and many of these regimes include rules on abuse of dominance. Competition agencies in jurisdictions with long-established antitrust regimes (such as the EU, UK and US) have used these rules to impose significant fines on firms with a dominant market position. Enforcement has also picked up in jurisdictions with more recent regimes, such as China. This is a foreword to a database of commentary on decisional practice and case law in the area of abuse of dominance covering over 35 sectors, including pharmaceuticals, transport, utilities, distribution/retail, information technology and online platforms. The focus of the database is on Europe but the database also includes commentary on cases and developments in other jurisdictions such as Brazil, Canada, China, India, Japan, Mexico, Russia, South Africa and the US. Figure 1 below contains a complete list of the sectors and jurisdictions covered. This foreword discusses legal developments up until and including 9 March 2020.

Monica Magnusson, Kirti Gupta, Douglas Lahnborg, David Matthew, Kadambari Prasad, Renato Nazzini Innovation Economics Conference for Antitrust Lawyers #1 5G, Internet of Things, SEPs

23 June 2020

1st Webinar of the « 4th Innovation Economics Conference » organised by Concurrences, in partnership with Compass Lexecon and Orrick, with Kirti Gupta (Vice President - Technology & Economic Strategy, Qualcomm), Douglas Lahnborg (Partner, Orrick), Monica Magnusson (Vice President - IPR Policy, Ericsson), David Matthew (Director of Economics, Ofcom), Renato Nazzini (Professor, King’s College London) and Kadambari Prasad (Senior Economist, Compass Lexecon).

Bhabya Mahapatra The High Court of Delhi sides with the Indian Competition Authority and resolves the jurisdictional issue between the latter and the Intellectual Property Rights Authorities under the Patents Act (Monsanto)

20 May 2020

Following the appeal made against several orders of Competition Commission of India (“CCI”) by Monsanto Holdings Pvt. Ltd. (“MHPL”), the Delhi High Court on 20th May, 2020 handed down the judgement of MHPL & Ors. v. CCI, clarifying mainly the jurisdictional issues between the IPR authorities (...)

Peter L’Ecluse The German Federal Court of Justice issues a judgment in a case involving SEP licensing negotiations on FRAND terms between two companies active in the mobile telecommunication market (Sisvel / Haier)

5 May 2020

On 5 May 2020, the German Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof - the “FCJ”) delivered a judgment in a case pitting Sisvel against Haier which deals with the licensing of Standard Essential Patents (“SEP”) on terms that are fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory (“FRAND”). This is the first (...)

Henrik Holzapfel, Christian Dölling The German Federal Court of Justice rules on SEP licensing negotiations on FRAND terms in the mobile telecommunications market (Sisvel / Haier)

5 May 2020

The German Federal Court of Justice (FCJ) has issued its decision in a landmark case regarding standard essential patents (SEPs) and fair, reasonable and nondiscriminatory (FRAND) licensing of SEPs. The judgment, dated 5 May 2020, was handed down in litigation between the Sisvel patent pool and (...)

Katharina Bongs The German Federal Court of Justice clarifies obligations of parties in SEP licensing negotiations on FRAND terms (Sisvel / Haier)

5 May 2020

In its judgment of 5 May 2020, the Federal Court of Justice (“FCJ”) overturned the appeal ruling of the Higher Regional Court of Düsseldorf (the “Düsseldorf Court”) and found that Haier’s mobile telephones and tablets infringed Sisvel’s standard-essential patent (“SEP”) and that Sisvel had not abused (...)

Peter L’Ecluse The EU Court of Justice rules that pay-for-delay patent settlements may restrict competition ‘by object’ (Generics - UK)

30 January 2020

On 30 January 2020, the Court of Justice of the European Union (the “ECJ”) handed down its judgment in Case C-307/18, Generics (UK) and Others. This case marks the first time the ECJ has ruled on patent settlement agree- ments between originator pharmaceutical companies and generic producers. (...)

Barış Yüksel The Turkish Competition Authority publishes its first investigation concerning abuse of dominance by a standard essential patent holder (Philips)

26 December 2019

Turkish Competition Authority’s (“TCA”) Philips Decision (26.12.2019, 19-46/790-344 – published on 27.05.2020) is quite significant as it is the first time that the TCA examined the conducts of a Standard Essential Patent (“SEP”) holder within the scope of Article 6 of the Act No. 4054 on the (...)

Jay Jurata, Emily Luken The US DoJ and PTO issue a policy statement on standard-essential patents subject to a commitment to license on FRAND terms

19 December 2019

After withdrawing support from a 2013 policy statement on appropriate remedies for standard-essential patents subject to a commitment to license on fair, reasonable and nondiscriminatory terms, the U.S. Department of Justice’s Antitrust Division and the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, along (...)

Alexander Middleton, Kevin J. Post, Steven Pepe The US District Court for the Northern District of California rules that an automotive company breaches FRAND commitments for the standard essential patents it was offering to license (Continental / Avanci)

5 October 2019

This article has been nominated for the 2020 Antitrust Writing Awards. Click here to learn more about the Antitrust Writing Awards. As new devices become wirelessly connected, the importance of fairly licensing cellular standard essential patents (SEPs) has become increasingly important. This (...)

Rupprecht Podszun Intellectual property and competition law: An overview of EU and national case law

19 September 2019

About ten years ago, “IP and competition law” was the hottest ticket in antitrust town. The relevant cases decided in those days had it all: Well-known companies, very sophisticated legal issues, and authorities that were willing to intervene vigorously in the field of intellectual property law.

Michael A. Carrier The US Patent and Trademark Office Director calls for a balanced and structured policy for patent licensing negotiations in standards organizations

10 September 2019

This article has been nominated for the 2020 Antitrust Writing Awards. Click here to learn more about the Antitrust Writing Awards. Standards allow companies to build compatible products. But they often include patents. And patents present complex issues. Licensors agree to reasonably license (...)

Christian Dölling, Henrik Holzapfel The Munich District Court issues an anti-suit injunction in patent litigation preventing an automotive company from further pursuing proceedings in the US (Nokia)

11 July 2019

On July 11 2019, the Munich I District Court (Landgericht) issued an anti-suit injunction in patent litigation, preventing an automotive company from further pursuing proceedings in the United States. The Munich decision might become a landmark case because German courts have historically not (...)

OECD The OECD holds a roundtable on the licensing of IP rights and competition law

6 June 2019

IP rights, which create temporary exclusive rights that protect investments in research and some creative activities, have taken on an increasingly prominent and extensive role in economic activity – and in market competition as well. As the economy digitalises and the importance of intangible (...)

Kevin J. Post, Lance Shapiro, Nathaniel Hyman, Samuel Brenner, Steven Pepe, Mark S. Popofsky The US District Court for the Northern District of California finds that a semiconductor company’s "no license, no chips" program violates antitrust laws (Qualcomm)

21 May 2019

This article has been nominated for the 2020 Antitrust Writing Awards. Click here to learn more about the Antitrust Writing Awards. On May 21, 2019, following a full trial on the merits, Judge Koh of the Northern District of California issued a 233-page opinion in a closely watched case (...)

Adam Brebner, Stephen Elliott, Renata B. Hesse, Garrard R. Beeney, Marc De Leeuw The US District Court for the Northern District of California holds that semiconductor’s company patent licensing violates the Sherman Act (Qualcomm)

21 May 2019

This article has been nominated for the 2020 Antitrust Writing Awards. Click here to learn more about the Antitrust Writing Awards. On May 21, 2019, in FTC v. Qualcomm, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California issued findings of fact and conclusions of law, holding that (...)

Peter L’Ecluse The Hague Court of Appeal delivers its judgment on an alleged infringement of patent essential to the universal mobile telecommunications system standard (Asus / Philips)

7 May 2019

On 7 May 2019, the Court of Appeal of the Hague delivered its judgment in a case pitting Philips against ASUS regarding the alleged infringement of Philips’ European patent EP 1 623 511, which was considered essential to the High Speed Uplink Packet Access (“HSUPA”) protocol of the Universal (...)

Pauline Kuipers, Piet-Hein Eijssen The Dutch Higher Court of Appeal rules on an alleged abuse of dominant position by an electronic company for not licensing a patent under FRAND conditions (Asus / Philips)

7 May 2019

On 7 May 2019, the The Hague Court of Appeal ("Court of Appeal") ruled against electronics company Asus in a patent dispute with electronics company Philips. The Court of Appeal found that Philips’ patent was valid and had been infringed by Asus. The manufacturer had argued that Philips abused (...)

Peter L’Ecluse The Paris Court of Appeal delivers the first judgement on FRAND terms and applies the French legislation implementing the trade secrets directive (Conversant / LG)

16 April 2019

On 16 April 2019, the Paris Court of Appeal delivered a judgment in Conversant v. LG, a case dealing with the concept of licensing under fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory (“FRAND”) terms. While the court did not set a much-anticipated FRAND royalty rate, the case is noteworthy because of (...)

Catherine Prieto Standing up for Convergence and Relevance in Antitrust, Frédéric Jenny Liber Amicorum

May 2019

This section selects books on themes related to competition laws and economics. This compilation does not attempt to be exhaustive but rather a survey of themes important in the area. The survey usually covers publication over the last three months after publication of the latest issue of (...)

John Handoll India: Remedies in merger cases

February 2019

No notified combination has to date been prohibited by the Competition Commission of India (CCI). However, the clearance of some 30 combinations has been subject to the parties implementing structural or non-structural (behavioural) remedies. This article outlines the sometimes innovative (...)

Emily Luken, Jay Jurata The US DoJ files a statement asking the Court to order additional briefing and to hold a hearing on a remedy if it finds a semiconductor company liable for anticompetitive abuses in connection with its patent licensing program (Qualcomm)

5 February 2019

This article has been nominated for the 2020 Antitrust Writing Awards. Click here to learn more about the Antitrust Writing Awards. In a highly unusual move, the U.S. Department of Justice Antitrust Division (DOJ) recently led a statement of interest in the Federal Trade Commission (FTC)’s (...)

Peter L’Ecluse The UK Court of Appeal confirms jurisdiction over a standard essential patents dispute (Huawei / ZTE)

30 January 2019

On 30 January 2019, the UK Court of Appeal issued a judgment in the case pitting Conversant Wireless against two telecommunications companies, Huawei and ZTE. In this case, Conversant was seeking injunctive relief and damages against both companies in relation to the alleged breaches of its (...)

Walid Chaiehloudj Les accords de report d’entrée

9 January 2019

Pay-for-delay agreements are agreements entered into in the pharmaceutical sector. Designed by originator companies, they have the object or effect of delaying the entry of generic competitors on the market. These agreements originated in the United States in the late 1990s and continue to (...)

Adam Brebner, Nader Mousavi, Garrard R. Beeney, Marc De Leeuw The US District Court for the Eastern District of Texas holds that FRAND commitment does not require licensing at chip level (HTC / Telefonaktiebolaget / Ericsson)

7 January 2019

This article has been nominated for the 2020 Antitrust Writing Awards. Click here to learn more about the Antitrust Writing Awards. SUMMARY On January 7, 2019, in HTC Corp. v. Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson, Judge Rodney Gilstrap of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas (...)

Nicolas Charbit, Sonia Ahmad Frédéric Jenny Liber Amicorum

28 December 2018

Dr. Frédéric Jenny is the Renaissance man of competition policy. As an economist, scholar, judge and enforcer, he has helped transform the landscape of global competition enforcement. In the first volume of this Liber Amicorum, distinguished members of both Bar and Bench, as well as academics (...)

Joseph Raffetto, Nicholas Rotz, Daniel Graulich, Logan M. Breed The US District Court for the Northern District of California denies motion for summary judgment that a company’s standard essential patent licensing practices breached its FRAND obligations (ASUS / InterDigital)

20 December 2018

This article has been nominated for the 2020 Antitrust Writing Awards. Click here to learn more about the Antitrust Writing Awards. In a decision published in redacted form, Judge Beth Labson Freeman of the Northern District of California denied ASUSTek Computer Inc.’s and ASUS Computer (...)

Emily Luken, Jay Jurata Standard-Essential Patents and Competition Law: An Overview of EU and national case law

22 November 2018

The extent to which competition law has shaped developments and understandings of standard-essential patents (SEPs) has increased substantially over the past fifteen years. When e-Competitions began publishing, there were very few cases and agency enforcement actions on the topic. The “Smartphone Wars” that played out in the early 2010s altered the landscape significantly and brought about numerous decisions applying competition law and competition law principles to SEPs in Europe, the United States, and Asia. Today, the exact contours of how competition law interacts with SEPs is one of the most hotly debated topics in legal literature. Indeed, a small but vocal minority question whether the issues that arise with respect to SEPs even trigger competition law at all.

Shan Jiao, Wei Tan, Ying Qin Merger control (10 years of the Anti-Monopoly Law in China - Beijing, 14 July 2018)

November 2018

These papers review the use of FRAND commitment as merger remedy and the risks of Un-notified Concentrations in China. The paper looks at the economic meaning of FRAND price after the merger, the potential abuse of FRAND commitment and the implication of these remedies. By the end of this (...)

Guanbin Xie, Li Zhu, Xuting Wu IP and antitrust litigation (10 years of the Anti-Monopoly Law in China - Beijing, 14 July 2018)

November 2018

In April 2017, Beijing High Court issued its Guidelines on the Ruling of Patent Infringements and one year later, Guangdong High Court issued its Guidelines for the Trial of SEP Disputes (for trial implementation) on 26 April 2018. Both of these Guidelines tried to resolve the SEP-related (...)

Aymeric de Moncuit Connecting competition law standards to the Internet of things

November 2018

The advent of the Internet of Things will entail a new Internet revolution and bring about profound changes that will rival the first wave of Internet innovation. This paper explores the competition law implications raised by this upcoming revolution. Starting by discussing the merits of open (...)

Glossary

A

Absolute territorial protection • Abuse of dominant position • Abuse of economic dependence • Access to essential facility • Access to information • Access to the file • Agency agreement • Agent • Agreement (notion) • Amicus curiae • Ancillary restraints • Annulment • Anticompetitive objet or effect • Anticompetitive practices • Applicable law • Arbitration

B

Barriers to entry • Bid rigging • Block exemption (Regulation) • Boycott • Brand competition • Burden of proof • Business secrets • Buyer power

C

Cartel • Clearance phase I (merger) • Clearance phase II (merger) • Collecting society • Collective dominance • Collective redress (class action) • Competence • Competition policy • Competition policy • Complaint • Compliance programme • Compulsory license • Concerted practices • Concession • Concurrent jurisdiction • Consumers protection • Consumers’ associations • Control (change) • Control (notion) • Cooperation Agreement • Cooperation between competition authorities • Coordinated effects • Copyright • Corporate group • Corruption • Cost-based access • Criminal sanctions • Cross subsidisation

D

Damages • Dawn raids • De minimis notice • Direct effect • Discriminatory practices • Distribution agreement • Dominance (notion)

E

ECHR • Economic analysis • Economic efficiency • Effect on trade between Member States • Effective judicial protection • Environmental protection • Essential facility • European Competition Network (ECN) • Excess prices • Exchanges of information • Exclusive distribution • Exclusive purchasing agreement • Exclusive right (Art. 106 TFEU) • Exclusivity clause • Exhaustion • Extra-territoriality

F

Failing firm defence • Fine • Fine mitigating • Foreign direct investment (FDI) • Franchising • FRAND

G

Geographic market • Group purchasing organization • Gun jumping

H

Hard core restrictions • Horizontal agreement

I

Individual exemption • Intellectual property right • Interim measures • International competition network (ICN) • Investigations / inquiries • Investigations/ inquiries

J

Joint control • Joint venture • Judicial review

L

Legal privilege • Leniency • Licensing • Limitation period • Low prices

M

Mandatary (distribution) • Margin squeeze • Market economy investor • Market power • Market share • Media pluralism • Merger (notion) • Merger (prohibition) • Merger (withdrawal) • Minority shareholdings

N

Ne bis in idem • Non-competition clause • Notification • Nullity

O

Oligopoly

P

Parallel imports (parallel trade) • Passing-on • Pay-for-delay • Periodic penalty payment • Personal data • Predatory pricing • Preliminary ruling (Art. 267 TFUE) • Price discrimination • Price-fixing agreement • Prices • Principle of effectiveness • Principle of equal treatment • Principle of equivalence • Principle of proportionality • Private enforcement • Privatization • Procedural autonomy • Professional association • Public procurement • Public undertaking

R

Referral (merger) • Refusal to deal • Regulated prices • Relevant market • Remedies (antitrust) • Request for information • Resale price maintenance (RPM) • Resale-below-cost • Right against self-incrimination • Rights of defence • Rule of reason

S

Sector inquiry • Selective distribution • Services of general economic interest • Single branding • Sole control • Spill-over effects • Standard-Essential Patent (SEP) • State action defense • State aid (compatibility) • State aid (existing aid) • State aid (notification) • State aid (notion) • State aid (recovery) • State aid (tax ruling) • State aid (unlawful aid) • State measure • Sudden break of established business relationships

T

Test SIEC (merger) • Test SLC (merger) • Transfer of technology • Transfer pricing • Trustee (mergers) • Turnover threshold (merger) • Tying or tied selling

U

Undertaking (notion) • Unfair competition • Universal service

V

Vertical agreement • Vertical restraints (or restrictions)