Study On Regulation Of Anti-monopoly Law On IPR Holder's Refusal To License

Intellectual property is a kind of legitimate monopoly.which should bu used properly or else would break healthy competition order and result in the intervention of anti-monopoly law furthermore.Refusal to license intellectual property may become the connection point between the intellectual property law and anti-monopoly law .This study focused on Europe and the U.S. refusal to license intellectual property Antimonopoly act,From the perspective of combing the two cases of judicial practice,Trying to refuse permission for the behavior of China's intellectual property law put forward their views on regulation.The full text is composed of three chapters.The first chapter is a refusal to license intellectual property rights acts of the preliminary study,Consistency between intellectual property and anti-monopoly, while there are potential contradictions and conflicts.In order to make The internal legal system keep harmony and unity,Reaching the goal of encouraging competition and innovation to maintain the target,It is necessary to balance of competition and intellectual property.then,Finally, Classfiy possible types of IPR Holder's Refusal behavior. And limit this article's disscussion to unilateral Refusal to license.In the view of case,,the second chapter reveals how European Union and United States regulate IPR Holder's Refusal to License.The three cases of European Union reflect "essential facilities doctrine",the "Magill" case leads to the "New Rules",and the "Bronner" case tell us what is really "essential facilities doctrine".through "Microsoft Corp v Commission" case, Its attitude to "essential facilities doctrine"has further development.the related pratice of EU is a consistent process .How about United States ?Comparing "Kodak" case with "CSU" case,we can see that the related pratice of United States is not a consistent process .Finally,make a brief summary about judicial practice of EU and US.The third chapter is that how to regulate the IPR Holder's Refusal to License in china, via "dexian v. Sony "case in china , pointing that it is necessary to regulate the IPR Holder's Refusal to License in china Then, according to recently revised the "Patent Law" and the newly issued "Guidelines on relevant market definition," to talk about coordination Chinese intellectual property law and anti-monopoly law .In view of intellectual property is the product of policy, it is necessary to Promulgate "Intellectual Property anti-monopoly Enforcement Guidelines," Of course, in the judicial practice level, it is necessary to introduce the "Essential Facilities Doctrine".Concluding section on the paper are briefly summarized.On the refusal to license intellectual property regulation, not simply refuse permission denied.Notice of denial of permission is the core of human rights, but we must not forget the original purpose of intellectual property policy but transferring exclusive rights to Faming people in return for the promotion of social innovation, to achieve "Pareto Optimality" and to be vigilant on the knowledgeproperty rights holders of intellectual property policies deviate from the track set, when anti-monopoly law as a tool for economic justice have refused permission in respect of the battlefield.