Two sides of same coin

Introduction
Dhanendra Kumar’s article, “Intellectual Property and Competition Law: Two Sides of the Same Coin,” in Business Standard, examines the complex relationship between intellectual property rights and competition law. With his extensive background in regulatory frameworks, the author brings a comprehensive understanding of this intricate interplay, particularly in India’s evolving economic landscape. The article underscores the dual roles that IP and competition law play in fostering innovation and ensuring market fairness. Intellectual property rights incentivize creativity and innovation by granting creators exclusive rights over their inventions and works. On the other hand, competition law provides that these rights do not stifle competition or create monopolies that could harm consumers and the economy.
The article emphasizes how crucial it is to balance these two legal systems, mainly as India’s economy grows. The article is relevant now because of the growing international scrutiny of how businesses, especially those in the technology and pharmaceutical industries, can occasionally use intellectual property rights as a cover for anti-competitive behaviour. This article’s main points centre the need for a fair and impartial approach to intellectual property and competition legislation. It highlights that although intellectual property laws give exclusive rights to promote innovation, these rights shouldn’t be used to limit competition or create obstacles for new businesses to enter the market. For example, patent laws are necessary to safeguard innovators, but they can also be abused to keep monopolistic control over a market, which restricts customer options and drives up prices. The article also discusses compulsory licensing, a situation in which the government permits, under certain restrictions, third parties to manufacture a patented good without the patent owner’s approval. This is especially important in the pharmaceutical sector, where it’s critical to balance promoting innovation and guaranteeing the general public access to reasonably priced medications.
Balancing Intellectual Property Rights and Competition Law
To demonstrate the possible conflicts between intellectual property and competition law, the article cites a number of international examples and court decisions. It is based on the experience of antitrust authorities in the US and the EU, who have prosecuted businesses that violate intellectual property rights in order to engage in anti-competitive behaviour. In the United States v. Microsoft[1] it was held that, software giant was penalized for using its strong market position to restrict competition by bundling its media player with its operating system. In a similar vein, the article addresses how Indian competition authorities handle intellectual property-related conflicts, notably those in the pharmaceutical industry where patent rights can result in anti-competitive actions like ‘evergreening ‘, a practice where companies make minor changes to existing drugs to extend their patent life and prevent generic competition.
In order to foster innovation and the welfare of consumers, the article advocates for a more integrated approach to policymaking, in which intellectual property rights and competition legislation are viewed as complimentary instruments rather than as competing forces. In order to prevent IP rights from undermining competition and to make sure that competition legislation is sufficiently adaptable to the shifting dynamics of IP-driven marketplaces, policymakers must exercise extreme caution. Additionally, the article supports stricter competition law enforcement in industries where intellectual property rights are prevalent. According to a ruling by the Delhi High Court in the case of Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson v. CCI[2], the Patent Controller, a government official responsible for overseeing patent-related matters, will handle violations under the Patent Act because it is a separate law that applies to licence violations, the Patents Act is a piece of legislation that comes after the Competition Act, and it is a comprehensive code in and of itself. Therefore, the author recommends that in order to keep an eye out for and respond to any possible IP rights abuses that can endanger competition, the Competition Commission of India (CCI) work closely with IP regulators.
The link between IP and competition law significantly impacts innovation and market dynamics. The author makes the case that a more competitive and dynamic market environment can result from solid competition in law enforcement and a well-calibrated intellectual property system. Consequently, this fosters ongoing innovation, which benefits customers by offering better goods and services at more affordable costs. The article discusses how startups and small and medium-sized businesses (SMEs) may suffer from overly stringent IP protection. It becomes clear that these smaller companies frequently need more financial means to handle intricate IP environments or fight off patent infringement claims, which can hinder their capacity for innovation and competitiveness.
Conclusion
The article concludes with a thorough examination of the complex interplay between competition law and intellectual property. The author emphasizes the need for a regulatory framework to support economic growth and consumer welfare by arguing for a balanced strategy that safeguards innovation while prohibiting anti-competitive behaviour. The article provides valuable insights for policymakers, corporations, and legal professionals navigating the intricate worlds of intellectual property and competition law, especially as India continues to make its mark on the international arena.
Notes:-
[1] United States of America v. Microsoft Corporation, 253 F. 3d 34 (D.C. Cir. 2001)
[2] Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson v. CCI, (W.P.(C) 464/2014 & CM Nos.911/2014 & 915/2014)
****
Author: Debleena Biswas, a 5th-year BBA LLB (Hons) student at CHRIST (Deemed to be University), Pune, Lavasa