Dr. Beatriz Conde Gallego

Herausgeberschaften

Personal Data in Competition, Consumer Protection and Intellectual Property Law - Towards a Holistic Approach? (MPI Studies on Intellectual Property and Competition Law, 28), Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg 2018, VI + 577 S. (gemeinsam mit Mor Bakhoum et al.). DOI

Abuse of Dominant Position: New Interpretation - New Enforcement Mechanisms? (MPI Studies on Intellectual Property, Competition and Tax Law, 5), Springer, Berlin 2008, VII + 204 S. (gemeinsam mit Mark-Oliver Mackenrodt, Stefan Enchelmaier).

• reviewed by: Schuhmacher, ZeuP 2009, 668-670
• reviewed in: Journal of Economic Literature 47 (2009),1, 159
• reviewed by: Furse, 2009 E.C.L.R. 473

Monographien und andere selbständige Publikationen

Handelsbezogene Aspekte des Lizenzkartellrechts (Münchner Schriften zum Europäischen und Internationalen Kartellrecht, 2), Stämpfli, Bern 2003, 231 S.

Handelsbezogene Aspekte des Lizenzkartellsrechts, Julius-Maximilians-Universität, Würzburg 2002, Dissertation.

Beiträge in Sammelwerken, Kommentierungen, Handbüchern und Lexika

Introducing a Holistic Approach to Personal Data, in: Mor Bakhoum et al. (Hg.), Personal Data in Competition, Consumer Protection and Intellectual Property Law (MPI Studies on Intellectual Property and Competition Law, 28), Springer, Berlin 2018, 1 - 4 (gemeinsam mit Mor Bakhoum et al.). DOI

Relation of Intellectual Property Rights to Trade, Investment and Anti-Trust Rules, in: Thomas Cottier, Krista Nadakavukaren (Hg.), Elgar Encyclopedia of International Economic Law, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK; Northampton, MA 2017, 527 - 529 (gemeinsam mit Henning Grosse Ruse-Khan).

TRIPS and Competition Rules: From Transfer of Technology to Innovation Policy, in: Hanns Ullrich et al. (Hg.), TRIPS plus 20 - From Trade Rules to Market Principles (MPI Studies on Intellectual Property and Competition Law, 25), Springer, Heidelberg; Berlin 2016, 529 - 559 (gemeinsam mit Mor Bakhoum). DOI

• The competition-related provisions in the TRIPS Agreement were very much influenced by the context in which the Agreement was concluded. The inclusion of competition provisions served a specific purpose. Competition law was basically seen as a tool to facilitate the transfer of technology. Twenty years after the entry into force of TRIPS, the legal landscape within which IPRs are exercised has experienced tremendous changes on the IP front, as well as on the competition law front. IP protection tends to be raised beyond the minimum standards of TRIPS, questionable protection has been granted specially in the field of patents, enforcement mechanisms and remedies have been strengthened and IP portfolios are strategically used in the markets. From an international perspective, higher IP standards have been exported through bilateral and regional trade agreements. Competition law is developing at a very fast speed, especially in emerging and developing economies. Moreover, competition law and IP laws are increasingly understood as being complementary to each other. A strict and “conflict oriented” reading of TRIPS’ competition provisions does not help to cope with the new strategies of innovation and the new forms of use of IPRs. We argue in this paper that a flexible reading of the competition-related provisions in TRIPS provides enough room for applying competition law as an innovation instrument. Hence, the application of competition law to combat IP-related restraints of competition that inhibit innovation would be covered by the rationale of the TRIPS Agreement just as much as an application of competition law aimed at enhancing access to and dissemination of IP-protected products.

La dimensión internacional del Derecho de libre competencia, in: José Antonio García Cruces (Hg.), Tratado de Derecho de la competencia y de la publicidad, Vol. 1, Tirant lo Blanch, Valencia 2014, 963 - 1001.

Intellectual Property and Restraints of Competition, in: Jürgen Basedow et al. (Hg.), The Max Planck Encyclopedia of European Private Law, Vol. I, Oxford University Press, Oxford 2012, 942 - 946.

Intellectual property rights and competition policy, in: Carlos M. Correa (Hg.), Research Handbook on the Protection of Intellectual Property under WTO Rules (Intellectual Property in the WTO, 1), Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK; Northampton, MA 2010, 226 - 265.

Unilateral refusal to license indispensable intellectual property rights – US and EU approaches, in: Josef Drexl (Hg.), Research Handbook on Intellectual Property and Competition Law, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK; Northampton, MA 2008, 215 - 238.

Abuse of Dominant Position: New Interpretation - New Enforcement Mechanisms?, in: Mark-Oliver Mackenrodt, Beatriz Conde Gallego, Stefan Enchelmaier (Hg.), Abuse of Dominant Position - New Interpretation - New Enforcement Mechanisms (MPI Studies on Intellectual Property, Competition and Tax Law, 5), Springer, Berlin 2008, V - VIII (gemeinsam mit Mark-Oliver Mackenrodt, Stefan Enchelmaier).

Propiedad intelectual, libre competencia e integración económica: la experiencia europea, in: Raúl A. Etcheverry, Héctor O. Chomer (Hg.), Código de comercio y normas complementarias: Tomo 6, Propiedad Industrial, Hammurabi, Buenos Aires 2006, 81 - 118.

Aufsätze

IoT Connectivity Standards: How Adaptive is the Current SEP Regulatory Framework?, IIC 50, 1 (2019), 135 - 156 (gemeinsam mit Josef Drexl). DOI

• The Internet of Things is advancing as a new technological paradigm with enormous economic and societal implications. Network connectivity provides the basis. With this in mind, past and current conflicts surrounding the licensing and enforcement of standard essential patents (SEPs) in the information and communications technology (ICT) sector cast a shadow over IoT development. Focusing on the European approach based on competition law, this article explores the extent to which the existing legal framework, which has been mainly developed against the backdrop of problems in the mobile industry, will be capable of responding adequately to the challenges raised by the IoT.

Uber in Spain, Journal of European Consumer and Market Law 4, 1-2 (2015), 62 - 63.

Rahmenbedingungen für den Wettbewerb um Arzneimittel - neuere Entwicklungen des Kartellrechts im Pharma-Sektor, sic! 15, 2 (2011), 126 - 138 (gemeinsam mit Rupprecht Podszun).

Die Anwendung des kartellrechtlichen Missbrauchsverbots auf "unerlässliche" Immaterialgüterrechte im Lichte der IMS Health- und Standard-Spundfass-Urteile, GRUR Int 55, 1 (2006), 16 - 28.

La negativa unilateral de una empresa en posición de dominio a conceder una licencia para la utilización de un derecho de propiedad intelectual, Actas de Derecho Industrial y Derecho de autor, Actas de derecho Industrial y derecho de Autor 24 (2004), 465 - 483.

Comments on the Draft Technology Transfer Block Exemption Regulation, IIC 35, 2 (2004), 187 - 196 (gemeinsam mit Josef Drexl et al.).

La negativa unilateral de una empresa en posición de dominio a conceder una licencia para la utilización de un derecho de propiedad intelectual, Actas de derecho Industrial y derecho de Autor 24 (2004), 465 - 483.

The Principle of Exhaustion of Rights and Its Implications for Competition Law, IIC 34, 5 (2003), 473 - 502.

The Future of Transnational Antitrust - From Comparative to Common Competition Law: Bericht über die Tagung des Max-Planck-Instituts für Geistiges Eigentum, Wettbewerbs- und Steuerrecht, Frauenchiemsee (3.-5. Juni 2002), GRUR Int 52, 5 (2003), 431 - 444.

El agotamiento de los derechos de propiedad industrial e intelectual: un análisis desde la perspectiva del comercio internacional y del derecho de la libre competencia, Actas de derecho Industrial y derecho de Autor 23 (2002), 43 - 72.

Entscheidungsanmerkungen

Anmerkung zu EuGH vom 29.04.2004, IIC 35, 5 (2004), 571 - 573 (gemeinsam mit Beatriz Conde-Gallego).

Anmerkungen zum Urteil des spanischen Tribunal Supremo vom 28.9.2001 - "Bacardi", GRUR Int 51, 8/9 (2002), 766 - 769.

Rezensionen

Rezension von: Alikhan, Shahid; Mashelkar, Raghunath: Intellectual Property and Competitive Strategies in the 21st Century. 2. Aufl., Wolters Kluwer Law & Business, Austin et al. 2009, XIII + 221 S., ISBN 978-90-411-2644-3, GRUR Int 59, 3 (2010), 265.

Rezension von: Oberender, Peter (Hrsg.): Wettbewerb und Geistiges Eigentum. Schriften des Vereins für Sozialpolitik Bd. 316, Duncker & Humblot, Berlin 2007, 100 S., ISBN 978-3-12500-5, GRUR Int 57, 7 (2008), 625 - 627.

Rezension von: Von Verschuer, Nikolaus / Gres, Joachim (Hrsg.): Liber Amicorum für Alexander Riesenkampff zum 70. Geburtstag. C.H. Beck, München 2006, 283 S., ISBN 3-406-54896-2, GRUR Int 57, 11 (2008), 969.

Rezension von: Ghidini, Gustavo: Intellectual Property and Competition Law - The Innovation Nexus. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, Northampton 2006, XII + 164 S., ISBN 978-1-84542-135-9, IIC 39, 7 (2008), 879 - 882.

Rezension von: Von Verschuer, Nikolaus, Gres, Joachim (Hrsg.): Liber Amicorum für Alexander Riesenkampff zum 70. Geburtstag, C.H. Beck, München 2006, 283 S., ISBN 3-406-54896-2, GRUR Int 57, 11 (2008), 969.

Rezension von: Lévêque, Francois / Shelanski, Howard (eds.): Antitrust, Patents and Copyright - EU and US Perspectives, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham/Northampton 2005, pp. XXI + 223, ISBN 1-84542-603-7, IIC 38, 4 (2007), 514 - 516.

Rezension von: Stirnimann, Franz Xaver: Urheberkartellrecht. Kartellrechtliche Verhaltenskontrolle von urheberrechtlichen Märkten in der Schweiz. Schweizer Schriften zum Handels- und Wirtschaftsrecht, Band 228, Zürich, Schulthess, 2004, LXIV, 364 S., ISBN 3-7255-4735-1, GRUR Int 55, 2 (2006), 174 - 176.

Rezension von: Kübel, Constanze: Zwangslizenzen im Immaterialgüter- und Wettbewerbsrecht. Eine Untersuchung zu Patenten und Urheberrechten bei technischen Normen (Compulsory licences in intellectual property and competition law. An analysis of patents and copyrights in connection with technical norms). Cologne etc., Carl Heymanns Verlag, 2004. XIV + 405 S., ISBN 3-452-25724-X, IIC 37, 5 (2006), 632 - 634.

Rezension von: Stirnimann, Franz Xaver: Urheberkartellrecht. Kartellrechtliche Verhaltenskontrolle von urheberrechtlichen Märkten in der Schweiz. Schweizer Schriften zum Handels- und Wirtschaftsrecht, Band 228, Schulthess, 2004, LXIV, 364 S., ISBN 3-7255-4735-1, GRUR Int 55, 2 (2006), 174 - 176.

Rezension von: Festschrift für Alberto Bercovitz Rodriguez Cano. Spanische Landesgruppe der AIPPI (Hrsg.): Estudios sobre propiedad industrial e intelectual y Derecho de la competencia - Homenaje a A. Bercovitz. Spanische Landesgruppe der AIPPI, Barcelona 2005, 992 S., ISBN 84-932692-2-0, GRUR Int 54, 11 (2005), 958 - 959.

Rezension von: De León, Ignacio: Latin American Competition Law and Policy - A Policy in Search of Identity. (International Competition Law Series, Bd. 1), Kluwer Law International, Den Haag 2001, 476 S., ISBN 90-411-1542, GRUR Int 53, 2 (2004), 174 - 176.

Rezension von: De León, Ignacio: Latin American Competition Law and Policy - A Policy in Search of Identity. (International Competition Law Series, Bd. 1), Kluwer Law International, Den Haag 2001, 476 S., ISBN 90-411-1542, GRUR Int 53, 2 (2004), 178 - 180.

Rezension von: De Miguel Asensio, Pedro A.: Contratos Internacionales sobre Propiedad Industrial. Estudios de Derecho Mercantil, 2. Aufl., Bd. 26, Civitas Ediciones S.L., Madrid 2000, 424 S., ISBN 84-470-1365-0, GRUR Int 52, 11 (2003), 971 - 972.

Tagungs- und Diskussionsberichte

3. Konferenz der Academic Society for Competition Law in Zürich, WuW 58, 10 (2008), 1079 - 1082 (gemeinsam mit #Namen).

Forschungspapiere

Position Statement of the Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition of 2 May 2023 on the Implementation of the Digital Markets Act (DMA) (Max Planck Institute for Innovation & Competition Research Paper, No. 23-11), 2023, 33 S. (gemeinsam mit Josef Drexl et al.).

• Regulation (EU) 2022/1925 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 September 2022 on contestable and fair markets in the digital sector (Digital Markets Act; DMA) entered into force on 1 November 2022 and applies from 2 May 2023. The DMA is a novel type of regulation laying down harmonised rules for core platform services provided or offered by gatekeepers to business users and end users established or located in the Union. It pursues the objective of achieving fairness and contestability in the digital sector across the Union where gatekeepers are present.
  In its position statement of 2 May 2023, the Institute acknowledges that uniform rules throughout the European Union and centralised enforcement are necessary to prevent internal market fragmentation and welcomes the first Commission Implementing Regulation for the DMA of 14 April 2023. However, it remains concerned by the DMA’s unique institutional design and its interaction with other laws as outlined under Articles 1(5), 1(6) and 1(7).
  In particular, the Institute raises awareness about the possible overly broad blocking effects of the DMA on national rules, which may have the unintended consequences of privileging gatekeepers by jeopardizing future national legislative initiatives. This ultimately obstructs the achievement of contestability and fairness in digital markets. A complementary application of the competition rules and effective enforcement of the DMA is, against this backdrop, crucial. Yet there is uncertainty over administrative enforcement mechanisms, and it is unclear what role private enforcement plays in the current legal design of the DMA. The position statement identifies and examines challenges in the implementation of the DMA, along with recommendations for overcoming them.
• Available at SSRN

SEP Licensing in the IoT: Is There a Case for a Duty to License Upstream Implementers? (Max Planck Institute for Innovation & Competition Research Paper, No. 21-07), 2021, 23 S.

• With the advent of the Internet of Things (IoT), network connectivity provides the foundation for a wide array of innovative products and services. From agriculture to energy and utilities, industrial manufacturing, transportation, consumer electronics, retail, healthcare, finance or the public sector, IoT-related products and services will be offered in just about every sector of the economy. Uses for connectivity in the IoT context are extremely varied and differ substantially from traditional voice and data services. Moreover, a growing number of market actors for which network connectivity has played no or only a marginal role in their business models will in future hinge on it. These changes challenge developers and implementers of connectivity technologies alike.
  Among the manifold and complex questions that the licensing of SEPs in the IoT context poses, the choice of the level of licensing is surely one of the most disputed ones. The great diverging views among stakeholders and legal scholars have led the Regional Court of Düsseldorf to look for legal guidance by the CJEU. Already in its Huawei judgment, the CJEU reflected on the potential abusive nature of a SEP holder’s refusal to license on FRAND terms and confirmed the general applicability of Article 102 TFEU to SEP-based injunctions. Yet, while sharing some basic elements, the circumstances surrounding current SEP-disputes in the IoT context differ from those of the Huawei case. Looking at the innovation-related dimension of standardization was largely neglected by the CJEU in Huawei. In these cases, it may prove to be decisive. The present paper explores whether the functional conditions underlying innovation-related standardization set limits on the SEP holder’s freedom to decide to whom he grants a license and analyzes whether Article 102 TFEU could serve as the legal basis for a direct claim to compel a FRAND license.
• Available at SSRN

Stellungnahmen

Comments of the Max Planck Institute for Intellectual Property, Competition and Tax Law on the White Paper by the Directorate-General for Competition of April 2008 on Damages Actions for Breach of the EC Antitrust Rules, 2008, 18 S. (gemeinsam mit Josef Drexl et al.).

• Auch veröffentlicht in IIC 39,7 (2008), 799 - 811
• Comments-WhitePaperDamageActionsForBreach2.pdf

Comments of the Max Planck Institute for Intellectual Property, Competition and Tax Law (Munich) on the DG Competition Green Paper of December 2005 on Damages actions for breach of the EC antitrust rules, 2006, 29 S. (gemeinsam mit Josef Drexl et al.).

• Auch veröffentlicht in IIC 37,6 (2006), 700 - 728
• Comments-GreenPaperAntitrustRules1.pdf

Comments of the Max Planck Institute for Intellectual Property, Competition and Tax Law (Munich) on the DG Competition discussion paper of December 2005 on the application of Article 82 of the EC Treaty to exclusionary abuses, 2006, 24 S. (gemeinsam mit Josef Drexl et al.).

• Auch veröffentlicht in: IIC 37,5 (2006), 558 - 572
• Comments-ECTreatyExclusionaryAbuses1.pdf