Intellectual Property and Competition Law - IPRsonline.org

ICTSD Programme on IPRs and Sustainable Development3135 No case has ever been brought to a trial under this section. The Canadian Commissionerof Competition reported that the Bureau of Competition will “examine Canada’s existingprovisions for compulsory licensing, that is, sections 19 and 65 of the Patent Act, and section32 of the Competition Act, to determine whether these have met their legislative intent. Thestudy will also explore other models for compulsory licensing and the appropriate division ofresponsibility among the Commissioner of Patents, the Commissioner of Competition and theCourts” (Scott, 2006).36 203 F.3 rd 1322 (Fed. Cir. 2000), at 1326.37 See Rural Tel. Serv. Co. v. Feist Publications, Inc., 957 F. 2d 765, 767-69.38 1998 WL 614485 (DDC Sept. 14, 1998), quoted in Hovenkamp et al, 2005, p. 36.39 The following is partially based on Correa, 2004.40 In Alaska Airlines, Inc. v. United Airlines, Inc., 948 F.2d 536, 542 (9th Cir. 1991).41 See Rahnasto, 2003, p. 144.42 See, e.g., Gleklen and MacKie-Mason in the July 2002 edition of Antitrust Source: http://www.abanet.org/antitrust/source/july.html43 Intergraph Corp. v. Intel Corp., 3F. Supp. 2d 1255 (N.D. Ala. 1998).44 195 F. 3d at 1356-59.45 Bellsouth Advertising v. Donnelley Information, 719 F Supp. 1551 (S.D. Fla. 1988).46 In Verizon Communications v. Law Offices of Curtis V. Trinko 540 US 398 (2004) the SupremeCourt stated that it had never recognised the essential facilities doctrine (Hovenkamp et al,2005, p. 20).47 Article 82. “Any abuse by one or more undertakings of a dominant position within the commonmarket or in a substantial part of it shall be prohibited as incompatible with the commonmarket in so far as it may affect trade between Member States. Such abuse may, in particular,consist in: (a) directly or indirectly imposing unfair purchase or selling prices or other unfairtrading conditions; (b) limiting production, markets or technical development to the prejudiceof consumers; (c) applying dissimilar conditions to equivalent transactions with other tradingparties, thereby placing them at a competitive disadvantage; (d) making the conclusion ofcontracts subject to acceptance by the other parties of supplementary obligations which, bytheir nature or according to commercial usage, have no connection with the subject of suchcontracts.”48 (238/87), [1988] ECR 6211, [1989] 4 CMLR 122, CMR 14498. An almost identical judgment wasgiven at the same time in Renault Maxicar 53/87, [1988] ECR 6039 [1990] 4 CMLR 265 [1990] 1CEC 267.49 Cases C-241-242/91P [1995] ECR I-743.