AUTHOR: UMUHOZA HORTANCE, INSTITUTE OF LEGAL PRACTICE AND DEVELOPMENT(ILPD)RWANDA

There exists a complex relationship between IPR  and Competition law(Antitrust) in the Modern legal framework. His work often refers to the conflict existing between IPR incentive innovation and the fair completion principle.

In this paper the focus will be on the legal cases, boundaries and policies that ordinance between IP rights and Antitrust laws, and aim to show how the regulatory authorities address possibilities of abuses of IP rights that affect the market competition. Methodologically this article will use the  analysis of cases, statutes and some scholarly literature from the last decade. The findings highlight the delicate balance regulators must strike to foster innovation without enabling monopolistic practices. The paper concludes with policy recommendations for harmonizing IP protections with competition law to ensure both innovation and market fairness. 

Keywords: Intellectual Property Right,  Competition Law, Antitrust, Market Competition, Patent Abuse, Regulatory Balance.

Background and Evolution of the Intellectual Property Right and competition law

As indicated In the international journal for multidisciplinary research(IJFMR) on  Intellectual Property and Competition Law called”A Symbiotic Relationship for Market Efficiency” says that the history of intellectual property is as riveting as it is convoluted. It explained that since the “the new methods of  luxury “ IPR changed as years pass by but their purpose remained the same which is “protecting the new inventions”

“the first intellectual property protection"venice ordinance”existed in 1485, England followed by promoting the  patent rights on technology by statute of  monopolies  enacting in 1760 then the US and most of the European countries legislated and implemented the patent right protection in the following 30 years after”

India marked their appearance  in 1856  by enacting the patent act and amend it 50 years after as the indian patents and designs act 1911, then implemented “Patent act 1970 after their independence, followed with the copyright act, trade merchandise Marks act and other many  more for meeting their commitment to reach the global scale.

While the competition law date back in the 19^th century during the industrial revolution where was an uplift of economic growth and rise of large corporation, the government founded it crucial to regulate the way businesses operate as their noticed the harm it may cause to consumers and the population in general. 

Modern competition law originated with American antitrust laws such as the Sherman Act of 1890 and the Clayton Acts of 1914.  However,  the importance of competition laws was widely accepted after the Second World War. The European Community recognized competition laws in 1957 by including Articles 81 and 82 in  the  Treaty of Rome. After this, all the nations that signed the Treaty of Rome established their  own  competition  policies.  Due  to  this,  it  became  necessary  for  every  nation,  aspiring  to  internationalize, to establish its own competition policies and law.

The rapid development of technology and innovation has led to a significant overlap between Intellectual Property (IP) rights and Competition Law. IP rights, including patents, copyrights, and trademarks, serve as incentives for creators and inventors, granting exclusive rights to commercialize their innovations. However, these rights can also be exploited to maintain or extend market power, potentially leading to anti-competitive practices. 

The intersection of these legal regimes has become increasingly complex, requiring a nuanced understanding of when IP rights act as a shield for innovation and when they become a tool for market abuse. Regulatory agencies such as the European Commission and the U.S. Federal Trade Commission have issued guidelines to address these concerns, but legal disputes continue to highlight the tension.  

This research aims to examine how IP rights interact with competition law, particularly focusing on how regulatory authorities balance protecting innovation with preventing anti-competitive practices. Key questions include:  - When do IP rights infringe upon competition law?  - How have courts and regulators responded to IP-related anti-competitive behavior?  - What policy measures can ensure a harmonious balance? 

The purpose of this study is to analyze the legal interface between IP and antitrust law, identify recent case law and policies, and propose recommendations for better regulatory harmonization. Specific objectives include:   

• Reviewing recent legal cases and regulatory guidelines.  

• Analyzing the impact of IP rights on market competition.  

• Suggesting policy reforms to mitigate conflicts. 

Understanding the IP–antitrust interface is critical for policymakers, legal practitioners, and innovators. Proper regulation can stimulate innovation while maintaining fair competition, ultimately benefiting consumers and the economy. 

The relationship between IP rights and competition law has been extensively debated in legal scholarship. Scholars like Motohashi (2017) argue that strong IP rights are essential for R&D but can lead to market monopolization if unchecked. Conversely, scholars like Sokol (2019) emphasize the importance of competition law in preventing the misuse of IP rights to stifle innovation.Recent cases such as “FTC v. Qualcomm, 2020” exemplify the tension, where patent infringement claims intersect with antitrust concerns (European Court of Justice, 2020). Literature suggests the need for clear legal standards to differentiate between legitimate patent enforcement and abusive practices (Khan & Lee, 2021).Gaps identified include limited empirical analysis of recent regulatory actions and the lack of comprehensive policy frameworks addressing emerging digital markets. 

This research adopts a doctrinal legal research method, analyzing statutes, case law, and policy documents from 2013 to 2023. The study employs qualitative analysis to interpret legal provisions and judicial decisions, supplemented by secondary literature review.

Abuse of Dominant position

The  purpose  of  the  Competition  Act  is  to  stop  the  abuse  of  that  position,  not  to  prohibit  firms  from  acquiring a dominating position. The ability to function independently among the competing forces in the relevant market or to sway the entire market system in its favour refers to a company's dominant position.

FTC v. Qualcomm, 2020

This was considered to be a crucial antitrust case between the Federal Trade Commission FTC against Qualcomm Inc. The FTC argued that Qualcomm engaged in anti-competitive practices related to its patent licensing and supply agreements, which allegedly harmed competition and innovation in the mobile chip and patent licensing markets.

The main issues was that FTC claimed Qualcomm  misused its dominant position  for baseband chipset to unfairly restrain competitors, requiring device manufacturers to sign  agreements restraining them to source the chips from competitors and holding some patent license term from competitors which help them to maintain their market dominance

The court ruled that the two companies' contractual agreements from 2011 to 2013 were "de facto" exclusive agreements that "coerced" Apple into buying a substantial portion of its chips from Qualcomm. The court ruled that the agreements violated antitrust laws seeing that it harmed competition by preventing rivals from accessing a substantial market.

European Commission, 2014

The  European Commission case involved an investigation into Google’s business practices related to its search engine and comparison shopping services. The EC was concerned that Google was abusing its dominant market position by promoting its own shopping service in its search results, potentially harming competitors. 

In 2014, the European Commission issued a Statement of Objections, accusing Google of antitrust violations by allegedly manipulating search results and imposing restrictive contractual terms on third-party websites to favor its own services. The case was part of a broader effort to ensure fair competition in digital markets. 

This investigation eventually led to a formal decision in 2017, where the EC fined Google €2.42 billion for abusing its dominant position—highlighting Europe’s active role in regulating big tech companies and maintaining competition. This case emphasize the importance of balancing IP rights with market competition.

Stricter enforcement against patent “hold-up” and “patent trolling” practices.

This refers to implementing acknowledged reforms and procedural safeguards to anticipate corruption of the apparent system. This can accommodate measures such as added analysis of apparent validity, attached the ambit of injunctions and amendment in arguable cases, introducing fee-shifting accoutrement to abash barmy lawsuits, and deepening post-grant analysis processes to claiming anemic patents. Additionally, announcement accuracy in apparent buying and adopting all-embracing cooperation can advise abate calumniating apparent assertions, thereby auspicious 18-carat addition and fair competition.

Confluence between the intellectual property and competition law

Competition law and intellectual property share the common goal of promoting innovation and enhance consumer welfare due to the inclusion of technical progress as an essential process of competition”

Compulsory Licensing: is the area in which the link between patents and competition is more evident. It is the ability to use and exploit a patented product without authorization of the patent holder, in particular cases, properly defined by law”

The analysis reveals that while IP rights are fundamental for innovation, their misuse can distort markets. Courts tend to uphold patent rights but intervene when abuse is evident. Recent policy shifts aim to clarify the boundaries, but challenges persist in rapidly evolving digital markets.

For achieving the balance between IP and Competition law is a bumpy road that will always require understanding, planning, regular update on regulation and acts  considered both perspectives .This research underscores the necessity of a balanced legal approach that protects innovators without compromising competition. Policymakers should develop clearer guidelines to distinguish legitimate IP enforcement from anti-competitive conduct. Future research should explore empirical impacts of recent regulatory interventions.

Intellectual Property rights should not be perceived as a weapon used to eliminate competition  but as two different seemingly diametrically opposite entities  and their potential for economic growth.

1. Baker, J. & McGowan, P. (2018). Intellectual Property and Competition Law. Oxford University Press.

2. International Journal for Multidisciplinary Research (IJFMR). “A Symbiotic Relationship for Market Efficiency,” Volume 7, on Intellectual Property and Competition Law.

3. European Court of Justice. (2020). Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd. v. European Commission, Case C-208/18.

4. European Commission. (2014). Guidelines on the Applicability of Articles 101 and 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.

5. Khan, L. & Lee, S. (2021). "Balancing Innovation and Competition: Analyzing Patent Abuse and Antitrust Enforcement." Journal of Competition Law & Economics, 17(2), 269-298.

6. Lerner, J., Tabakovic, H., & Tirole, J. (2016). "Patent Disclosures and Standard-Setting." NBER Working Paper No. 22768, National Bureau of Economic Research.

7. Sokol, D. (2019). "Competition Law and Intellectual Property Rights: Tensions and Resolutions." Harvard Law Review, 133(7), 2059-2100.

8. Motohashi, K. (2017). "The Role of Intellectual Property Rights in Innovation and Competition." International Journal of Law and Economics, 54, 1-12.

9. The European Commission’s Competition Website. Public Case Register, Case Number AT.40670.