{"?xml":{"@version":"1.0"},"edm:RDF":{"@xmlns:dc":"http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/","@xmlns:edm":"http://www.europeana.eu/schemas/edm/","@xmlns:wgs84_pos":"http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos","@xmlns:foaf":"http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/","@xmlns:rdaGr2":"http://rdvocab.info/ElementsGr2","@xmlns:oai":"http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/","@xmlns:owl":"http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#","@xmlns:rdf":"http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#","@xmlns:ore":"http://www.openarchives.org/ore/terms/","@xmlns:skos":"http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/core#","@xmlns:dcterms":"http://purl.org/dc/terms/","edm:WebResource":[{"@rdf:about":"http://www.dlib.si/stream/URN:NBN:SI:doc-WRVP5OIC/5988a0c0-a282-4a3e-b0f8-e61821dd6f3c/PDF","dcterms:extent":"184 KB"},{"@rdf:about":"http://www.dlib.si/stream/URN:NBN:SI:doc-WRVP5OIC/cc6c8874-4187-4ddb-b3b4-591faf8d58be/TEXT","dcterms:extent":"112 KB"}],"edm:TimeSpan":{"@rdf:about":"2011-2025","edm:begin":{"@xml:lang":"en","#text":"2011"},"edm:end":{"@xml:lang":"en","#text":"2025"}},"edm:ProvidedCHO":{"@rdf:about":"URN:NBN:SI:doc-WRVP5OIC","dcterms:isPartOf":[{"@rdf:resource":"https://www.dlib.si/details/URN:NBN:SI:SPR-OSUSX1U0"},{"@xml:lang":"sl","#text":"Zbornik znanstvenih razprav (Pravna fakulteta. 1991)"}],"dcterms:issued":"2016","dc:creator":"Straus, Joseph","dc:format":[{"@xml:lang":"sl","#text":"številka:1"},{"@xml:lang":"sl","#text":"letnik:76"}],"dc:identifier":["COBISSID:15318097","ISSN:1854-3839","URN:URN:NBN:SI:doc-WRVP5OIC"],"dc:language":"en","dc:publisher":{"@xml:lang":"sl","#text":"Pravna fakulteta"},"dc:subject":[{"@xml:lang":"sl","#text":"intelektualna lastnina"},{"@xml:lang":"sl","#text":"karteli"},{"@xml:lang":"sl","#text":"patenti"},{"@xml:lang":"sl","#text":"pravna ureditev"},{"@rdf:resource":"http://www.wikidata.org/entity/Q131257"}],"dcterms:temporal":{"@rdf:resource":"2011-2025"},"dc:title":{"@xml:lang":"sl","#text":"\"Pay for delay\"| a subtly hidden, overlooked or ignored transatlantic divide| exemplified on the Actavis decision of the US Supreme Court and the servier decision of the EU Commission|"},"dc:description":[{"@xml:lang":"sl","#text":"The relationship between antitrust law and intellectual property rights, as exclusive rights, i.e. legal monopolies, has always been characterized by a mutual distrust of protagonists of either discipline. Only more recently the understanding started to prevail that intellectual property and antitrust laws work in tandem to bring new and better technologies, products and services to consumers at lower prices. The judicial treatment of the so-called \"pay for delay\" patent settlement agreements by courts and antitrust authorities, however, demonstrates how complicate and problem-burdened the application of antitrust law on legal transactions at the crossroads of antitrust law and patent law is and how difficult it is to achieve well balanced solutions satisfying the goals of both disciplines. In this contribution the legal situation under the US law, as applied by the US Supreme Court in the Actavis case, and under the EU law, as applied by the EU Commission in the Servier case is examined and the differences elaborated by taking into account the relevant facts of each case. The approach of the EU Commission is, eventually, critically reviewed in the light of the recent interpretation of Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union by the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Groupement des Cartes Bancaires case"},{"@xml:lang":"sl","#text":"Razmerje med kartelnim pravom in pravom intelektualne lastnine, predvsem patentnim pravom, ki podeljuje izključne pravice, je od nekdaj napeto in opredeljeno z medsebojnim nezaupanjem ter nerazumevanjem protagonistov obeh disciplin. Šele v zadnjem desetletju se je uveljavilo prepričanje, da kartelno pravo in pravo intelektualne lastnine delujeta kot tandem v korist novih in boljših tehnologij, izdelkov in storitev, ki so na voljo potrošnikom po nižjih cenah. Sodno in upravno obravnavanje t. i. pogodb pay for delay pa razodeva, s kakšnimi zapleti in s koliko težavami je obremenjena uporaba kartelnega prava pri pravnih poslih na področju, na katerem se soočata obe pravni disciplini, in kako težko je najti dobro uravnotežene rešitve, ki upoštevajo cilje tako patentnega kot tudi kartelnega prava. Prispevek obravnava pravna položaja v zvezi s to problematiko po pravu ZDA, kot ga je uporabilo Vrhovno sodišče v zadevi Actavis, in po pravu EU, kot ga je uporabila Evropska komisija v zadevi Servier, ter poudarja razlike med njima, upoštevajoč relevantne dejanske okoliščine obeh zadev. Pristop Evropske komisije je sklepno kritično ovrednoten v luči nedavne razlage 101. člena Pogodbe o delovanju Evropske unije, ki jo je podalo Sodišče EU v zadevi Groupement des Cartes Bancaires"}],"edm:type":"TEXT","dc:type":[{"@xml:lang":"sl","#text":"znanstveno časopisje"},{"@xml:lang":"en","#text":"journals"},{"@rdf:resource":"http://www.wikidata.org/entity/Q361785"}]},"ore:Aggregation":{"@rdf:about":"http://www.dlib.si/?URN=URN:NBN:SI:doc-WRVP5OIC","edm:aggregatedCHO":{"@rdf:resource":"URN:NBN:SI:doc-WRVP5OIC"},"edm:isShownBy":{"@rdf:resource":"http://www.dlib.si/stream/URN:NBN:SI:doc-WRVP5OIC/5988a0c0-a282-4a3e-b0f8-e61821dd6f3c/PDF"},"edm:rights":{"@rdf:resource":"http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/"},"edm:provider":"Slovenian National E-content Aggregator","edm:intermediateProvider":{"@xml:lang":"en","#text":"National and University Library of Slovenia"},"edm:dataProvider":{"@xml:lang":"sl","#text":"Univerza v Ljubljani, Pravna fakulteta"},"edm:object":{"@rdf:resource":"http://www.dlib.si/streamdb/URN:NBN:SI:doc-WRVP5OIC/maxi/edm"},"edm:isShownAt":{"@rdf:resource":"http://www.dlib.si/details/URN:NBN:SI:doc-WRVP5OIC"}}}}