L’articulation entre le droit des brevets et le droit de la concurrence constitue l’un des défis les plus complexes du droit économique contemporain. Ces deux branches du droit poursuivent des objectifs apparemment contradictoires : le droit de la propriété intellectuelle protège un intérêt particulier en garantissant au créateur qu’il pourra tirer profit de sa création en interdisant à toute personne non autorisée de porter atteinte à ses droits exclusifs, tandis que le droit de la concurrence vise à empêcher un comportement indésirable du marché et, en particulier, les abus de position sur un marché.
A delicate balance between monopoly and competition
There is a close link between patent rights and competition, which has two characteristics. On the one hand, patent law aims to prevent the copying or imitation of patented products and thus complements competition policy by promoting balanced market behaviour. On the other hand, competition law can limit patent rights by preventing patent holders from abusing their rights.
Cette tension fondamentale nécessite un arbitration constant. Un équilibre doit donc être trouvé entre la politique relative à la concurrence et les droits de brevet et cet équilibre doit permettre d’empêcher les abus de droits de brevet, sans annuler les avantages prévus par le système des brevets lorsque ces droits sont utilisés de façon appropriée.
Anti-competitive practices in patent exploitation
Object and Effect Restrictions
Patents confer exclusive rights which, whilst recognised, can lead to anti-competitive practices. Such practices are all the more frequent and damaging when the company holding an intellectual property right also holds a dominant position in the relevant market.
French and European law particularly penalise agreements which have the object or effect of distorting competition in a market. Agreements concerning the exploitation of inventions are not, by their nature, exempt from the application of competition law.
The Servier case: a textbook example of «pay-for-delay» agreements»
The Servier affair perfectly illustrates the potential abuses. The validity of patent 947 having been challenged by several generic laboratories preparing to enter the perindopril market, Servier concluded settlement agreements with the latter, under which the generics agreed not to challenge the patent and to stay out of the market until its expiry, in exchange for financial compensation from Servier.
In 2014, the Commission imposed fines totalling €427.7 million on Servier and five generic laboratories, considering that the agreements in question, under the guise of a settlement, had the actual object and effect of restricting competition. In 2024, the Court of Justice of the European Union confirmed that so-called «pay-for-delay» agreements constitute restrictions of competition by object.
The essential facilities doctrine applied to patents
The application criteria
The essential facilities doctrine, originally developed to enable access to infrastructure, was first applied to intellectual property rights in the Magill case of 6 April 1995. This doctrine imposes strict conditions: a refusal of access lacking objective justification, emanating from one or more companies in a dominant position in an upstream market, concerning a facility indispensable for carrying on an activity in a downstream market, which cannot be replicated under reasonable conditions, thereby preventing the emergence of a new product.
Jurisprudence developments: from Magill to IMS Health
The application of this theory to intellectual property rights has seen significant evolution. The IMS judgment led to a shift in the application of the essential facility doctrine in favour of firms operating in the same market, and offering the same service, which considerably weakens the novelty criterion.
Dans l’affaire IMS Health, l’entreprise américaine IMS Health avait fait breveter une base de données modulaire s’appuyant sur les codes postaux allemands. Pour pouvoir concurrencer plus efficacement IMS sur ce marché, la société NDC désirait obtenir un accès à cette base de données, devenue un standard de marché. Devant le refus opposé par IMS de lui céder une licence d’exploitation, NDC saisit la Commission pour abus de position dominante.
Standard essential patents: a specific challenge
The FRAND regime
This is particularly the case when intellectual property law consists of a essential patent for a standard (BEN), with competitors then having no choice but to use the patent if they wish to implement a product that complies with the standard.
Un brevet essentiel est un brevet dont l’exploitation est « indispensable à tout concurrent envisageant de fabriquer des produits conformes à la norme à laquelle il est lié ». Ces brevets sont soumis à des obligations particulières : une FRAND license signifie que la licence doit être : Fair (la licence ne doit pas comporter des termes limitant indûment la concurrence), Reasonnable (le prix de la licence ne doit pas être prohibitif), Non-Discriminatory (tout tiers doit être traité de la même manière).
The Huawei v. ZTE case
The holding of an SEP by a company in a dominant position and the refusal to grant FRAND licences to a third party are at the origin of the CJEU's decision of 16 July 2015, in which the obligations incumbent on both the SEP holder and the potential licensee were clarified.
Cette jurisprudence établit un cadre procédural strict pour les actions en contrefaçon impliquant des standard essential patents aux normes, équilibrant les droits du titulaire du brevet et les besoins de la concurrence.
Contemporary challenges and future prospects
The increasing complexity of criteria
These criteria undoubtedly give competition authorities a wide margin of discretion to assess whether conduct constitutes an abuse. From when, indeed, can a good be considered truly necessary or new?
The impact of settlement agreements
The Court confirmed that these settlement agreements constituted restrictions of competition by object, contrary to single market law by preventing market entry by competitors. It recalls the case law developed by the European Court which « sanctions the abnormal use of intellectual property rights ».
The future challenges of this partnership
The boundary between patents and competition law continues to evolve in the face of contemporary technological challenges. Competition authorities must strike a balance between the expected benefits from the granting of a licence, potential innovations through the disclosure of information, whilst taking into account the impact of granting such a licence on innovation.
This constant tension between protecting innovation and preserving competition requires constant vigilance on the part of regulatory authorities. Case law evolution shows a trend towards increased scrutiny of patent holders' practices., particularly when they hold a dominant position, while preserving the incentives to innovate that justify the very existence of the patent system.
The balance remains fragile and must be constantly reassessed in light of technological and economic developments, particularly in high-tech sectors where standards-essential patents are playing an increasingly important role in market structuring.
Further reading