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

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 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 (...)

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.

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 (...)

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 (...)

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

Les accords de report d’entrée (pay-for-delay) sont des accords conclus dans le secteur pharmaceutique. Conçus par les laboratoires princeps, ils ont pour objet ou pour effet de retarder l’entrée de concurrents génériques sur le marché. Nés aux États-Unis à la fin des années 1990, ces accords continuent (...)

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 (...)

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 (...)

Stefan M. Meisner, Lisa Peterson Rumin The US Northern District Court of California requires the holder of a standard-essential patent for cellular communication to license it to all those willing to pay a fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory rate (Qualcomm)

6 November 2018

This article has been nominated for the 2019 Antitrust Writing Awards. Click here to learn more about the Antitrust Writing Awards. FTC Secures Partial Victory Requiring SEP Holder to License to All Comers in Antitrust Case* Summary Recently, a federal district court in California granted (...)

Natasha Nayak The UK Court of Appeal upholds a decision qualifying an essential patent offer to be FRAND (Huawei / Unwired Planet International)

23 October 2018

UK COURT OF APPEAL UPHOLDS FRAND INJUNCTION* Last week, the UK Court of Appeal upheld the findings of the High Court in an important case regarding standard essential patents (SEPs). Of particular significance, the Court of Appeal upheld the finding that the defendant, an implementer of SEPs, (...)

Lara Rachidi The availability of injunctive relief under EU and US law for FRAND-encumbered patents

September 2018

Although seeking an injunction might be a legitimate tool, threatening a willing licensee with an injunction to extract excessive royalties can be abusive under competition law. In these cases, patentees abuse their market power by using injunctive remedies to avoid their FRAND commitment. Even (...)

Perrine Perez Les accords de report d’entrée. Contribution à l’étude de la relation du droit de la concurrence et du droit des brevets, Walid CHAIEHLOUDJ

September 2018

Fayrouze Masmi-Dazi Dominance in the telecom sector

17 May 2018

Over the last three years, there have been three landmark cases of dominance in the telecom sector in the EU targeting practices undertaken by telecom equipment suppliers: the Huawei/ZTE CJEU judgment in 2015, plus the Intel and Qualcomm decisions sanctioning exclusionary rebates. Given the significance of such cases both in terms of substantial assessment and political stance, these will be the focus of the present contribution.

Gabriella Muscolo, Giovanni Pitruzzella Unfair prices: A few remarks on competition policy and antitrust analysis

February 2018

Recent antitrust intervention against unfair prices in the pharmaceutical industry by the Italian and UK competition authorities, as well as the answer of the European Court of Justice to preliminary questions from the Latvian Supreme Court, have breathed new life into the longstanding debate (...)

European Commission The EU Commission clears a merger subject to remedies in the market of semiconductors (Qualcomm / NXP)

18 January 2018

Mergers: Commission approves Qualcomm’s acquisition of NXP, subject to conditions* The European Commission has approved under the EU Merger Regulation the proposed acquisition of NXP, based in the Netherlands, by Qualcomm of the US. The approval is conditional on full compliance with (...)

Porter Elliott The EU Commission conditionally clears a merger in the market of semiconductors (Qualcomm / NXP)

18 January 2018

On 18 January 2018, the European Commission (the “Commission”) conditionally approved the acquisition of NXP by Qualcomm. Both companies are important producers of chipsets used for smartphones and other applications. During an in-depth merger review, the Commission identified three competition (...)

Ianis Girgenson Standard essential patents: The European Commission finds that a merger between two major players in the semiconductor industry raises conglomerate concerns (Qualcomm / NXP Semiconductors)

18 January 2018

On 18 January 2018, the European Commission approved the acquisition of Dutch company NXP Semiconductors by U.S. group Qualcomm. Both parties were active in the supply of semiconductors. The Commission concluded that the transaction raised conglomerate concerns due to the parties’ strong (...)

Fei Deng, Mario Lopez The US District Court of California uses an economic approach to determine frand loyalty rates (TCL / Ericsson)

21 December 2017

On November 8, 2017, Judge James Selna of the US District Court in the Central District of California issued a decision (published later on December 21st) in TCL v. Ericsson determining fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory (FRAND) royalty rates for Ericsson’s standard essential patent (SEP) (...)

Maurits Dolmans, David R. Little, David Herrington The US District Court sets out FRAND rates for licensing standard-essential patents for 2G, 3G and 4G wireless communications (TCL / Ericsson)

21 December 2017

This article has been nominated for the 2019 Antitrust Writing Awards. Click here to learn more about the Antitrust Writing Awards. On December 21, 2017, the District Court for the Central District of California issued TCL v. Ericsson, resolving a long-standing dispute between the parties (...)

Charles Bankes, Michael Burdon The EU Commission publishes a fact sheet on IP rights enforcement and a communication setting out the EU’s approach to standard essential patents

29 November 2017

The European Commission today published a Fact Sheet on Intellectual Property Rights Enforcement and a Communication setting out the EU’s approach to Standard Essential Patents (SEPs). In recognition of what it perceives as the strategic importance of SEPs and Europe’s need to grasp the enormous (...)

Tim Kasten The EU Commission publishes a communication on Standard Essential Patents

29 November 2017

On 29 November 2017, the European Commission published a communication titled “Setting out the EU approach to Standard Essential Patents” (the “Communication”) in which it seeks to offer guidance and recommendations in relation to the licensing, valuation and enforcement of Standard Essential (...)

Jorge Padilla A research report finds that setting open technology standards through voluntary participation in Standards Development Organisations results in innovative and competitive industries

24 September 2017

Economic Impact of Technology Standards: The past and the road ahead - Key Findings* Our research has shown that industries based on open technology standards, agreed through voluntary participation in industry bodies, have an impressive record of innovation. We looked in particular at the (...)

Nicole Daniel The US District Court Southern District of California receives a claim from a smartphone manufacturer against one of its suppliers over allegedly abusive wireless patents (Apple / Qualcomm)

7 September 2017

Apple and Qualcomm proceeding* In January 2017 Apple filed suit against Qualcomm over its allegedly abusive licensing practices regarding wireless patents. Apple filed patent, antitrust and breach of contract claims against Qualcomm; this could result in damages of billions of dollars. (...)

Emily Luken, Jay Jurata, Matthew G. Rose The UK High Court of Justice issues an injunction prohibiting an undertaking from selling wireless telecommunications products in Britain due to its failure to enter into a worldwide patent license (Unwired Planet / Huawei)

7 June 2017

This article has been nominated for the 2018 Antitrust Writing Awards. Click here to learn more about the Antitrust Writing Awards. “Between a Rock and a Hard Place”: Unwired Planet v. Huawei and the Dangerous Implications of Worldwide FRAND Licenses I. Introduction The United Kingdom High (...)

Stefan M. Meisner The US Supreme Court holds that patentees extinguishes patents rights on a product once it makes a sale of it (Impression Products / Lexmark International)

30 May 2017

Reversing long-standing Federal Circuit precedent, the United States Supreme Court has now held that a patentee extinguishes its patent rights on a product upon its sale of that product, regardless of (1) whether the patentee placed a restriction on the sale (prohibiting reuse or resale), or (...)

Hanns Ullrich FRAND Access to open standards and the patent exclusivity: Restating the principles

May 2017

When technical standards are to be defined pursuant to the claims of a patent and, therefore, the use of the standard will necessarily infringe that standard-essential patent (SEP), the proprietor may commit to granting all users a license at fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory (FRAND) (...)

Peter L’Ecluse The EU Commission publishes a roadmap on the Standard Essential Patents to support the development of the 5G mobile communications standard

10 April 2017

On 10 April 2017, the European Commission published its roadmap on “Standard Essential Patents for a European digitalised economy” (the “Roadmap”) with the aim of supporting the development of the 5G mobile communications standard (“5G”) and the Internet of Things (“IoT”) universe. A standard (...)

Peter L’Ecluse The UK High Court delivers judgment in FRAND royalty case (Unwired Planet / Huawei)

5 April 2017

On 5 April 2017, Justice Birss of the English High Court of Justice issued a judgment in a license dispute involving Standard Essential Patents (“SEPs”) opposing Unwired Planet, a US based patent assertion entity, against Huawei, a Chinese telecommunications company. Unwired Planet sued Huawei (...)

Nicole Daniel The US District Court for the Northern District of California Judge’s expresses possible abuses in asserting legal privilege (Qualcomm / FTC)

17 January 2017

U.S. Qualcomm Case Update: Privilege Assertions* On 22 March 2018, in a court hearing in the Qualcomm case, Judge Koh expressed her concern over possible abuses in asserting legal privilege over certain documents. In January 2017, the U.S. FTC sued Qualcomm, alleging that the company (...)

Will Diaz, Stefan M. Meisner The US FTC and DoJ issue antitrust guidelines for the licensing of intellectual property

12 January 2017

On January 12, 2017, the Federal Trade Commission and the Antitrust Division of the US Department of Justice issued updated Antitrust Guidelines for the Licensing of Intellectual Property (the Guidelines). The revised Guidelines follow nearly half a year of consideration and public commentary. (...)

Christopher B. Hockett, Jesse Solomon China: An overview of intellectual property rights guidelines and global considerations for antitrust practitioners

November 2016

Anti-Monopoly Commission (“AMC”) has charged four Chinese state agencies with developing guidelines on when IPR-related conduct violates China’s Anti-Monopoly Law. So far, two of those agencies—the NDRC, which oversees price-related conduct, and the SAIC, which oversees non-price-related (...)

Antonin Pitras Competition Law as Regulation

September 2016

To what extent should competition agencies act as market regulators? Competition Law as Regulation provides numerous insights from competition scholars on new trends at the interface of competition law and sector-specific regulation. By relying on the experiences of a considerable number of (...)

Jacques Buhart The EU Court of Justice rules that royalties for unpatented technology are not necessarily anticompetitive (Genentech)

7 July 2016

EU COURT RULES THAT ROYALTIES FOR UNPATENTED TECHNOLOGY ARE NOT NECESSARILY ANTICOMPETITIVE* On 7 July 2016, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) handed down a judgment on whether Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) must be interpreted as (...)

David Knight, Nick Pimlott The UK Patents Court defers hearing on competition law issues in a patent litigation until infringement of patents is established (Illumina / Premiatha)

1 July 2016

Illumina, Inc v Premiatha Health PLC [2016] EWHC 1726 (Pat)*In July 2015 the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) handed down its judgment in Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd v ZTE Corp., ZTE Deutschland GmbH (Case C-170/13). In that Judgment the CJEU ruled that in proceedings for an (...)

James Bourke, Jon Turner, Laura Elizabeth John, Meredith Pickford The UK Court of Appeal overturns a UK Patents Court decision and allows competition law arguments in a FRAND dispute in relation to Standard Essential Patents (Unwired Planet / Huawei / Samsung / Ericsson)

27 May 2016

Court of Appeal reinstates Samsung’s case on non-discrimination and FRAND*On Friday 27 May, the Court of Appeal handed down an important judgment on the interplay between competition law and the licensing of essential patents.This is part of a landmark patent infringement case where Unwired (...)

Eibhlin Vardy The UK Patents Court declines application to transfer dispute on FRAND to UK Competition Appeals Tribunal (Unwired Planet / Huawei / Samsung)

29 April 2016

UK Patents Court refuses to transfer Unwired Planet competition claims to CAT*Background and status of proceedingsIn summary, Unwired Planet is asserting a number of patents against Huawei and Samsung, both of whom sell mobile devices and infrastructure equipment. The litigation has been (...)

Shubham Tiwary The High Court of Delhi clarifies jurisdictional validity of indian competition authority over investigations concerning unfair royalty structures charged by telecommunication company (Telefonaktiebolaget Ericsson)

3 March 2016

Competition Commission of India (CCI) on the basis of information produced, ordered an investigation over the unfair royalty structures being charged by Ericsson. The jurisdictional validity of this investigation was challenged by Ericsson in the case of Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson v CCI (...)

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 proportionnality • 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)