Merger reviewPowers of competition authority
Does the competition authority have the same authority with respect to reviewing mergers involving IP rights as it does with respect to any other merger?
Yes, the CMA has the same authority with respect to reviewing mergers involving IP rights (IPRs) as it does with any other merger. The acquisition or sale of IPRs alone will only amount to a relevant merger situation if it constitutes the acquisition or sale of a business. For this to be the case, the IPRs must constitute a business with a market presence to which a market turnover can be clearly attributed.Analysis of the competitive impact of a merger involving IP rights
Does the competition authority’s analysis of the competitive impact of a merger involving IP rights differ from a traditional analysis in which IP rights are not involved? If so, how?
The UK competition authorities apply the same general competition law principles to mergers involving IPRs that they apply to mergers involving any other form of property. Under the Enterprise Act, the substantive assessment is whether or not the merger will result in a substantial lessening of competition.
The existence of IPRs can play a part in defining the relevant market in which goods or services are sold and, as a result, what market the competitive effects of the merger need to be assessed in respect of. For example, in a situation where a manufacturer holds significant IPRs that allow it to prevent other manufacturers from producing spare parts for its products, the substitutability of the other manufacturers’ products could be reduced. This could result in a narrow definition of the relevant market for those spare parts. The strength of IPRs held by incumbent market participants may also be considered a barrier to entry into a market. Similarly, where parties hold complementary IPRs or IPRs for alternative technologies a merger could give rise to significant issues. Where licences are held, particularly in the medium or short term, more complex issues can arise on whether the IPRs are to be ascribed to the licensee or the licensor.Challenge of a merger
In what circumstances might the competition authority challenge a merger involving the transfer or concentration of IP rights? Does this differ from the circumstances in which the competition authority might challenge a merger in which IP rights were not a focus?
The UK competition authorities apply the same analysis to transactions involving the transfer of IPRs as they would apply to a transaction involving any other property. See question 20 for the role of IPRs in barriers to entry and definition of relevant market.Remedies to address the competitive effects of mergers involving IP
What remedies are available to address competitive effects generated by a merger when those effects revolve around the transfer of IP rights?
The main remedy applied to address the competitive effects of mergers involving IPRs is divestiture, either by licensing or assignment. The aim is that the parties acquiring the IPRs should be able to compete effectively with the merged entity.
The CMA has adopted the Competition Commission’s guidance on merger remedies (CC8), which contains guidance on IPR remedies. According to the guidance, for licensing of IPRs to be effective as a remedy it must be sufficient to significantly enhance the acquirer’s ability to compete with the merged entity. Such a remedy may not be effective if it needs to be accompanied by other resources (such as sales networks) to enable effective competition and these are unlikely to be available to the acquirers of the IPRs.
Given these difficulties in crafting effective IPR-based remedies, where possible, the UK competition authorities generally prefer to divest a business including IPRs rather than relying on IPR remedies alone. The view is that the business including the IPRs is more likely to include all that the acquirer needs to compete effectively with the merged entity.
The CMA recently consulted on updated guidance on merger remedies (CMA87con). However, insofar as it relates to IPRs, the current draft guidance does not make any significant changes.