| 1. |
|
|
| 2. |
- Bastidas Venegas, Vladimir, Associate professor/Docent, 1974-
(författare)
-
Google Android : Ekosystem i konkurrens?
- 2023
-
Ingår i: Ny Juridik. - : Norstedts Juridik AB. - 1400-3007. ; :4, s. 25-48
-
Tidskriftsartikel (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)abstract
- Tribunalen avgjorde för ett år sedan ett mycket intressant fall där det fastställdes att Google hade missbrukat sin dominerande ställning enligt artikel 102 Fördraget om Europeiska unionens funktionssätt (FEUF). Enligt beslutet hade Google vidtagit en rad åtgärder för att främja tillhandahållandet av Googles allmänna söktjänster i mobila enheter med Androids operativsystem (OS). Fallet rör en rad intressanta frågor avseende relevant marknad, dominans och olika missbruk. I denna artikel kommenteras rättsfallet.
|
|
| 3. |
- Bastidas Venegas, Vladimir, Associate professor/Docent, 1974-
(författare)
-
Intellectual property rights, enforcement costs and EU competition law
- 2022
-
Ingår i: Journal of Antitrust Enforcement. - : Oxford University Press. - 2050-0688 .- 2050-0696. ; 10, s. 1-20
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Cases in the intellectual property rights (IPR)–Competition Law intersection have raised the issue of costs of enforcement of IPRs when dealing with the assessment of whether competition law has been breached. Importantly, a systematic underestimation of enforcement costs may be problematic for the protection of underlying investments behind intellectual property as well as obstruct the cooperation between an IPR holder and its licensees, in particular as regards patent rights. Cases on reverse payments indicate that payments by a patent holder to a generic manufacturer under a settlement agreement may well be legitimate in order avoid enforcement costs while not restricting competition. The hard stance on no-challenge clauses and termination clauses under the technology transfer block exemption regulation (TTBER) can destabilize the relation between two parties that would benefit from increased certainty when cooperating to commercialize new technology. In cases regarding the failure of parties to agree on fair and reasonable and non-discriminatory-licensing of standard essential patents, a correct approach has probably been taken in Huawei. However, it is doubtful to what extent the judgment is based upon a balancing exercise that explicitly factors in enforcements cost. Accordingly, it is argued that the current framework of analysis of cases in the intersection is inadequate to proper assess enforcement costs of IPRs.
|
|
| 4. |
- Bastidas Venegas, Vladimir, Associate professor/Docent, 1974-
(författare)
-
Market Power In Eu Antitrust Law And State Aid Law
- 2019
-
Ingår i: Europarättslig tidskrift. - 1403-8722 .- 2002-3561. ; :2, s. 281-298
-
Tidskriftsartikel (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)
|
|
| 5. |
|
|
| 6. |
|
|
| 7. |
- Bastidas Venegas, Vladimir, Associate professor/Docent, 1974-
(författare)
-
Slovak Telekom - oundgänglighetskravet och missbruk vid leverans
- 2021
-
Ingår i: Ny juridik. - : Norstedts Juridik AB. ; :4, s. 25-51
-
Tidskriftsartikel (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)abstract
- I denna artikel kommenteras EU-domstolens avgörande Slovak Telekom mot Europeiska kommissionen, mål C-165/19 P, som meddelades den 25 mars 2021. Fallet rör påstått missbruksbeteende enligt artikel 102 Fördraget om Europeiska unionens funktionssätt (FEUF) vid en s.k. implicit leveransvägran från ett dominerande företag.
|
|
| 8. |
- Bastidas Venegas, Vladimir, Associate professor/Docent, 1974-
(författare)
-
The Application of EU Competition Law to the Exploitation of Human Genome Editing Technology
- 2022
-
Ingår i: European Journal of Health Law. - : Brill Nijhoff. - 0929-0273 .- 1571-8093. ; 29:3-5, s. 589-619
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- This paper explores the application of EU Competition Law to the exploitation of human genome editing technology. Holders of key patents in the sector have applied different methods for disseminating the technology, such as different forms of licens- ing agreement and patent pools. It is found that that the competition rules are ill-suited to assess some of the licensing arrangements applied, which give rise to legal uncertainty. Accordingly, holders of patents on human genome editing technology may be discouraged to apply efficient methods for disseminating the technology. This may delay or obstruct some of the benefits the technology is supposed to deliver to the market, maker actors and consumers.
|
|
