Bibliographie sélective OHADA

This thesis explores the way in which EU and U.S. antitrust rules address opportunistic conducts that emerge in the context of standard essential patents (SEPs). The analysis finds that the two systems have very different scopes in addressing those practices: conduct lawful under U.S. antitrust law is condemned by the EU competition law and vice versa. In contrast to other fields of antitrust, the differences between the EU and U.S. approach do not arise from the application of different legal standards, but rather reflect the core divergences in the statutory texts that address unilateral practices. The analysis also shows that both in the European Union and in the United States, competition authorities have tried to increase the scope of competition law—first, by stretching the antitrust doctrines outside established borders, and second, by advocacy measures designed to avoid opportunism related to SEPs. The thesis shows, nonetheless, that both approaches are problematic and a more cautious strategy is needed to avoid the risk of injecting imbalance in the standardization context.