경쟁법 관점에서의 반경쟁적 소송 남용에 대한 평가와 기준 - EU와 미국의 사례를 중심으로 -
Evaluation and Standards of Anti-competitive Litigations from the Perspective of Competition Law - Based on Cases in EU and US -
0
조회
0
다운로드
0
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
An anti-competitive litigation is abused legal process that affects the status ofcompetition in the industry adversely. Although anti-competitive litigationsare brought in many fields, the issue of such misused litigations has beenactively discussed recently in intellectual property right cases. Under EU competition law, anti-competitive litigations in intellectual propertyright are classified as litigations with non-price predatory abuse of adominant position. However, there are not many courts’ decisions whichevaluate anti-competitiveness in frivolous suits. Nonetheless, in a notable decision of ITT Promedia v. Commission in 1996, theEU Commission proposed “two-stage standard” influenced by jurisprudenceof Antitrust law in the United States. Then, the EU General Court decidedthat litigations satisfying conditions in ITT Promedia could be abuse of themarket-dominant position under (old) Art. 82 of EU (currently, Art. 102 ofTFEU). Currently, the issue of anti-competitive litigations has been vigorously debatedin relation to a problem whether competition law should be applied to abuseof intellectual property right in particular in pharmaceutical sector. For example, EU Commission pays attention to patent litigation strategies ofpharmaceutical companies producing original drugs. In the decision ofAstraZeneca - which was supported later by the General Court of EuropeanUnion -, EU Commission judged that AstraZeneca’s litigation with respect topatent clearly showed anti-competitive litigation strategies designed to impedefair competition from pharmaceutical companies producing copied drugs. Although the investigation at the level of EU Commission started in the limited scope of pharmaceutical industry, it is expected that problems oflitigations with respect to abusive intellectual property right could be animportant competition law issue in other areas of cutting-edge industries aswell. As examined in this Article, since patent litigations could be harmful tocompetition under certain circumstances, evaluation and judgment of thestandard for such cases should be approached in a cautious way. Althoughthe current two-stage standard derived from ITT Promedia provides with astarting reference point, more in-depth analysis with the work takingconcrete shape for the standard is required. The theory in relation to abusivelitigations in intellectual property right cases - if it is expanded beyond thecurrent emphasis on price competition - would be expected to receiveattention in countries with similar competition law system including Korea.
Abstract
An anti-competitive litigation is abused legal process that affects the status ofcompetition in the industry adversely. Although anti-competitive litigationsare brought in many fields, the issue of such misused litigations has beenactively discussed recently in intellectual property right cases. Under EU competition law, anti-competitive litigations in intellectual propertyright are classified as litigations with non-price predatory abuse of adominant position. However, there are not many courts’ decisions whichevaluate anti-competitiveness in frivolous suits. Nonetheless, in a notable decision of ITT Promedia v. Commission in 1996, theEU Commission proposed “two-stage standard” influenced by jurisprudenceof Antitrust law in the United States. Then, the EU General Court decidedthat litigations satisfying conditions in ITT Promedia could be abuse of themarket-dominant position under (old) Art. 82 of EU (currently, Art. 102 ofTFEU). Currently, the issue of anti-competitive litigations has been vigorously debatedin relation to a problem whether competition law should be applied to abuseof intellectual property right in particular in pharmaceutical sector. For example, EU Commission pays attention to patent litigation strategies ofpharmaceutical companies producing original drugs. In the decision ofAstraZeneca - which was supported later by the General Court of EuropeanUnion -, EU Commission judged that AstraZeneca’s litigation with respect topatent clearly showed anti-competitive litigation strategies designed to impedefair competition from pharmaceutical companies producing copied drugs. Although the investigation at the level of EU Commission started in the limited scope of pharmaceutical industry, it is expected that problems oflitigations with respect to abusive intellectual property right could be animportant competition law issue in other areas of cutting-edge industries aswell. As examined in this Article, since patent litigations could be harmful tocompetition under certain circumstances, evaluation and judgment of thestandard for such cases should be approached in a cautious way. Althoughthe current two-stage standard derived from ITT Promedia provides with astarting reference point, more in-depth analysis with the work takingconcrete shape for the standard is required. The theory in relation to abusivelitigations in intellectual property right cases - if it is expanded beyond thecurrent emphasis on price competition - would be expected to receiveattention in countries with similar competition law system including Korea.
참고문헌 (35)
- 강명수, "특허권의 행사와 공정거래법의 관계", 인권과 정의, (431), pp.56~74 (2013), 대한변호사협회
- 유럽의 제약산업 관련 경쟁법 집행동향: Sector Inquiry, 역지불합의, 특허권 남용을 중심으로, "김희은", ~ (2013)
- 박경신, "전략적 봉쇄소송 억제(Anti-SLAPP)법리의미국민사소송제도 상의 환경에 대한 이해와우리나라에서의 적용가능성", 법학연구, 14(3), pp.77~106 (2011), 법학연구소
- 정완, "각국의 경쟁법상 지식재산권 규제에 관한 고찰", 경희법학, 46(2), pp.171~201 (2011), 법학연구소
- Daniela Ampollini, "Looking for Sense in the Italian Antitrust Authority Decision in the Pfizer Xalatan Case", CPI Antitrust Chronicle, ~ (2012)
- Phillip E. Areeda, "Antitrust Law - An analysis of antitrust principles and their application", ~ (2004)
- James C. Cooper, "Antitrust Conference in Honor of Joseph Brodley: Panel III: Antitrust and The Obama Administration: U.S. Convergence with International Competition Norms: Antitrust Law and Public Restraints on Competition", B.U.L. Rev, 90(1555), pp.1604~ (2010)
- Susan A Creighton, "Cheap Exclusion", Antitrust L.J, 72 (2005)
- Katarzyna Czapracka, "Intellectual Property and the limits of antitrust: A comparative study" (2010), Edward Elgar
- Ariel Ezrachi, "An Analytical Guide to the Leading Cases" (2010), Oregon
- Michal S Gal, "The Follower Phenomenon: Implications for the Design of Monopolization Rules in a Global Economy", Antitrust Law Journal, 76(3), pp.899~ (2010)
- Gustavo Ghidini, "Intellectual Property and Competition Law-The Innovation Nexus" (2006), Cheltenham
- Stefano Grassani, "From AstraZeneca to Pfizer, Stage II: The Italian Administrative Court Reverses the Monopolization Claim Established by the Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato 2 CPI Sep", ~ (2012)
- Sham Litigation in the Pharmaceutical Sector, "Valéria Guimarães de Lima e Silva", GEG, ~, pp.Working Paper 2011 (2011), 61
- The strategic use of patents and its implications for enterprise and competition policies, "Dietmar Harloff", ENTR, ~, pp.Tender for No ENTR (2007), 05[DOI]
- Study on the Anti-Competitive Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights: Sham Litigation, "Lucia Helena Salgado", World Intellectual Property Organization, ~ (2011)
- the Walker Process Doctrine: Infringement Lawsuits as Antitrust Violations, "Herbert J Hovenkamp", U Iowa Legal Studies, ~, pp.Paper No. 08-6 (2008)
- David W. Hull, "The Application of EU Competition Law in the Pharmaceutical Sector", J. Eur. Comp. L. & Pac, 2, pp.480~ (2011)
- The Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights: A Survey of the Empirical Literature, "Jean O Lanjouw", NBER, ~, pp.Working Paper No. 6296 (1997)
- Michael J. Meurer, "Controlling Opportunistic and Anticompetitive Intellectual Property Litigation", Boston College Law Review, 44 (2003)
- Kristina Nordlander, "Abuse of Regulatory Procedures in the Pharmaceutical Sector-Developments Since the General Court’s Judgment in AstraZeneca", CPI Antitrust Chronicle, 2 (2010)
- Simon Praddis, "Intellectual Property and Competition Law: New Frontiers" (2011), Oxford University Press
- Suzzette Rodriguez Hurley, "Failing to Balance Patent Rights and Antitrust Concerns", The Federal Circuit Bar Journal, 13 (2004)
- Pharmaceutical Innovation, "FM Scherer", AEI-Brookings Joint Center for Regulatory Studies, ~, pp.Working Paper No. 07-13
- Dominik Schnichels, "The Pharmaceutical Sector Inquiry and its Impact on Competition Law Enforcement", Journal of Competition Law & Practice, 1 (2010)
- Gianni De Stefano, "Tough Enforcement of Unilateral Conduct at the National Level: Italian Antitrust Authority Sanctions Bayer and Pfizer for Abuse of Dominant Position (aka AstraZeneca Ruling and Essential Facility Doctrine in Italian Sauce)", Journal of European Competition Law & Practice, 3, pp.396~ (2012)
- Is Intent Relevant?, "Maurice E. Stucke", University of Tennessee College of Law Legal Studies, ~, pp.Research Paper No. 178 (2012)
- Pharmaceutical Sector Inquiry Final Report, "EC Commission", ~ (2009)
- Response to the Commission’s Preliminary Report by the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry, "EU Pharmaceutical Sector Inquiry", ~ (2009)
- Executive Summary of the Pharmaceutical Sector Inquiry Report, "Communication of the EC Commission", COM, ~ (2009)
- Competition Policy and Intellectual Property Rights, "OECD", OECD, 24~ (1989)
- Richard Bork, "The Antitrust Paradox: A Policy at War With Itself", pp.159~ (1978), Basic Books Inc
- Mariateresa Maggiolino, "Intellectual Property And Antitrust-A Comparative Economic Analysis of US and EU Law" (2012), Edward Elgar
- "OECD Policy Roundtable Proceedings, Competition and Regulation Issues in the Pharmaceutical Industry", ~ (2000)
- UN General Assembly, "Resolution 217 A(III), UN Document A", 810 at 71, 1948