Skip to content
Bristows
  • Expertise

    Core sectors

    • Life sciences
    • Technology
    • Brands

    Litigation & dispute resolution (Archive)

    • Advertising & marketing
    • Arbitration
    • Artificial intelligence
    • Charities and not-for-profit
    • Commercial & IP transactions
    • Competition advice & investigations
    • Competition litigation
    • Confidential information & trade secrets disputes
    • Corporate & financing
    • Cyber & data breaches

    Transactions

    • Data protection & privacy
    • Defamation & privacy disputes
    • Employment & immigration
    • Freedom to operate
    • IT & digital projects
    • IT disputes
    • Life sciences disputes
    • Life sciences regulatory
    • Litigation & dispute resolution
    • Merger control
    • Open source

    Regulatory & advisory

    • Outsourcing
    • Patent litigation
    • Real estate
    • SEP/FRAND disputes
    • Tax
    • Technology regulation
    • Telecommunications
    • Trade mark, designs & copyright disputes
    • Trade mark & design portfolio management
    • UPC
  • Viewpoint
    • Articles
    • Events
    • Latest news
    • Podcasts
    • Publications
  • People
  • Careers
    • Apprentices
    • Current opportunities
    • Diversity, Equality & Inclusion
    • Life at Bristows
    • Trainees
  • About us
    • Alumni
    • A reputation for firsts
    • Awards and recognitions
    • Compliance information
    • Corporate responsibility
    • GDPR
    • International horizon
    • Our locations
    • Our values
  • Contact
  1. Home
  2. The CLIP Board
  3. Compulsory patent licensing – developments in China analysed

Compulsory patent licensing – developments in China analysed

11.10.2022

Pat Treacy and Iva Gobac analyse a ground-breaking decision in which a Chinese court invoked the essential facilities doctrine to find an abuse of dominance in refusing to license patents. The recent article in the Journal of Intellectual Property Law and Practice follows our earlier summary (here) and analyses the decision in the context of EU and US competition law/antitrust jurisprudence on refusals to deal and/or license and the essential facilities doctrine.

Sign up here to receive CLIP Board updates

Pat Treacy

Iva Gobac's headshot

Iva Gobac

Author

  • LinkedIn
image description

Credentials

Practice areas

    What others say

    • Full profile
    • Back to people results

    Share

    • Facebook
    • Twitter
    • LinkedIn
    Related news
    • Naked and Afraid: Intel re-fined €376.3m for naked restrictions
      29.09.2023
    • Sham litigation meets competitor denigration: Italian competition authority fines Roxtec for abuse of dominance
      01.09.2023
    • The New EU R&D Block Exemption and Guidelines – A Partial Win for Innovation!
      16.06.2023
    • The Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Bill: 10 things you need to know
      02.05.2023
    • CLIP of the month: Curb your enthusiasm! CMA’s extra-territorial investigatory powers grind to a halt
      23.02.2023
    • A UK Technology Transfer Block Exemption Order? What the biopharmaceutical industry may have to say in relation to the CMA’s forthcoming consultation
      11.01.2023
    Back to articles
    • linkedin
    • youtube
    • instagram
    (SRA Number 591711)
    Bristows LLP
    London:

    100 Victoria Embankment
    London EC4Y 0DH
    T +44 20 7400 8000
    DX 269

    Brussels:

    Avenue des Arts 56 
    1000 Bruxelles 
    Belgium 
    T +32 2 808 7500 

    Dublin:

    18-20 Merrion St Upper
    Dublin 2 , D02 XH98
    Ireland
    T +353 1 270 7755

    RSS feeds
    • News and publications
    • Events and seminars
    Other links
    • Bristows Trainees site
    • Accessibility
    • Compliance information
    • Cookie policy
    • Modern slavery act
    • Terms of use
    2026 Bristows LLP Website by Itineris