Intellectual property refusals as an antitrust violation in Pakistan: how may the present strategy be enhanced?
-
Muhammad Salman Shafiq
and
Peicheng Wu
Abstract
In theory, the owner of intellectual property (IP) has the right to utilize it for profitable purposes. It is well acknowledged that the mutual objectives of IP law and competition law are to foster competition. Nonetheless, anti-competitive behaviors, such as refusing to grant IP licenses, are forbidden by Pakistan’s competition law and may be considered as an abuse of market dominating position. Due to their generality and absence of a clear methodology for evaluation, Pakistan’s anti-trust laws pertaining to the refusal to license IP provide too much latitude to the Competition Commission of Pakistan (CCP) in interpreting the legislation. The EU and China, the two main antitrust authorities in the modern world, have independent stances when it comes to rejecting IP licenses. By looking at comparative experiences, the EU’s strategy makes greater sense for Pakistan. By recognizing the importance of IP and its impact on innovation, it is recommended that Pakistan need to implement a clear-up standard to evaluate situations involving IP refusals under the Competition Act. Provisions about the remedy of a license denial should be included in Pakistani law in the interim. Regarding the denial of licenses, Pakistan might increase the transparency of its anti-monopoly legislation and establish a steady expectation, domestically and internationally, for technological endeavors. If enacted, these suggestions would enhance the application of Pakistani competition law in the region and give Pakistani courts and the CCP more detailed instructions on how to handle future interactions regarding the refusal to license IP and competition law.
References
Abuarrah, S. 2024. Translation by explicature: A form-based approach for translating legal texts. International Journal of Legal Discourse 9(1). 145–167. https://doi.org/10.1515/ijld-2024-2006.Search in Google Scholar
Akman, Pinar. 2024. A critical inquiry into ‘abuse’ in EU competition law. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 44(2). 405–433. https://doi.org/10.1093/ojls/gqae008.Search in Google Scholar
Anatiichuk, Viktoriia, Iryna Banasevych, Ruslana Heints & Uliana Gryshko. 2025. Harmonisation of contract law in the EU: Analysis of the process and its impact on the legal system of the member States. Revista Jurídica Portucalense 37. 22–43. https://doi.org/10.34625/issn.2183-2705(37)2025.ic-2.Search in Google Scholar
Bachhav, Rushikesh, Rutuja Deore, Mayur Bhamare, Khemchand Surana, Chandrashekar Patil & Sunil Mahajan. 2025. A detailed review on intellectual property rights. Asian Journal of Research in Pharmaceutical Sciences 15(1). 150–172.10.52711/2231-5659.2025.00006Search in Google Scholar
Barnett, Jonathan M. 2023. Antitrust mercantilism: The strategic devaluation of intellectual property rights in wireless markets. Berkeley Technology Law Journal 38. 259–278.Search in Google Scholar
Borgogno, O. 2025. Antitrust protectionism: Escaping the perils of anti-suit injunctions through WTO law. Journal of Competition Law and Economics 21. https://doi.org/10.1093/joclec/nhaf002.Search in Google Scholar
Brander, James A., Cui Victor & Vertinsky Ilan. 2017. China and intellectual property rights: A challenge to the rule of law. Journal of International Business Studies 48(7). 908–921. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41267-017-0087-7.Search in Google Scholar
Bruner, Christopher M. 2025. Corporate personhood, corporate rights, and the contingency of corporate law. Transnational Legal Theory. 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1080/20414005.2025.2471178.Search in Google Scholar
Bruno, F. 2024. Ordoliberalism as an ideology: A conceptual analysis. Journal of Political Ideologies 29(1). 212–224. https://doi.org/10.1080/13569317.2022.2065421.Search in Google Scholar
Bu, Q. 2025. The google antitrust conundrum amid rising US-China trade tensions. International Cybersecurity Law Review 6(3). 391–402. https://doi.org/10.1365/s43439-025-00155-3.Search in Google Scholar
Butt, Farooq, Hamid Bashir, Zobia Saeed, Syed Mubarak, Raza Atif, Rashid Usman, Furqan Malik & Hashmi Khurshid. 2025. A qualitative exploration of counterfeit, substandard, spurious, and adulterated drugs in Pakistan: A perspective of drug law experts. PLoS One 20(4). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0322188.Search in Google Scholar
Cabanellas, G. 2025. The impact of intellectual property and competition law on access to food from the perspective of Argentine law. IIC-International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law 56(1). 153–177. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40319-024-01539-4.Search in Google Scholar
Cheng, L., X. Gong & Y. Zhao. 2025. Big data versus big GPU: Evolving requirements and governance dynamics of AI training data. International Journal of Digital Law and Governance 2(1). 13–38. https://doi.org/10.1515/ijdlg-2025-0004.Search in Google Scholar
Cheng, L. & X. Liu. 2023. From principles to practices: The intertextual interaction between AI ethical and legal discourses. International Journal of Legal Discourse 8(1). 31–52. https://doi.org/10.1515/ijld-2023-2001.Search in Google Scholar
Coate, Malcolm B., W. Ulrick Shawn & M. Yun John. 2022. Critical loss in market definition: Methods and court decisions. Journal of Antitrust Enforcement 10(3). 419–442. https://doi.org/10.1093/jaenfo/jnac014.Search in Google Scholar
Damro, Chad. 2024. Competition policy and agent discretion: Transatlantic regulatory cooperation in the digital economy. Journal of European Integration 46(7). 1035–1052. https://doi.org/10.1080/07036337.2024.2398427.Search in Google Scholar
Day, George. S. 2025. Diagnosing the market-driven approach to innovation: Learning from practice. Strategic Management Review 6(2). 4–5. https://doi.org/10.1561/111.00000083.Search in Google Scholar
De Jonge, A. 2024. Data privacy in China and Europe: Individual, collective, subjective, and objective perspectives. International Journal of Law and Information Technology 32(1). 1–28. https://doi.org/10.1093/ijlit/eaae025.Search in Google Scholar
Dunne, Niamh. 2020. Dispensing with indispensability. Journal of Competition Law and Economics 16(1). 74–115. https://doi.org/10.1093/joclec/nhaa004.Search in Google Scholar
Fhima, Ilanah. 2025. Post-sale confusion: A doctrine in development. Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice 20(4). 265–269. https://doi.org/10.1093/jiplp/jpaf009.Search in Google Scholar
Galbraith, Craig S. & Kay Neil. 2025. Hidden in plain sight: QWERTY, the search for optimality and IP complementarity. Business History 67. 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1080/00076791.2025.2458052.Search in Google Scholar
Ghidini, Gustavo. 2025. Diverging approaches to intellectual property and a reform proposal prompted by AI. GRUR International 74(5). 416–429. https://doi.org/10.1093/grurint/ikaf026.Search in Google Scholar
Giladi Shtub, Tamar & Michal S. Gal. 2022. The competitive effects of China’s legal data regime. Journal of Competition Law and Economics 18(4). 936–970. https://doi.org/10.1093/joclec/nhac007.Search in Google Scholar
Gu, T. & J. Zhao. 2023. Beyond sanctions and anti-sanctions: Examining the impact on sustainable competition and China’s responses. International Journal of Legal Discourse 8(1). 95–119. https://doi.org/10.1515/ijld-2023-2005.Search in Google Scholar
Harankaha, H. A. 2024. Licensing contracts and competition law as mitigating factors against monopoly of intellectual property rights: An analysis. Issue 6 International Journal of Law Management & Humanities 7. 1224–1239.Search in Google Scholar
Harris, H. Stephen & Rodney J. Ganske. 2008. The monopolization and IP abuse provisions of China’s anti-monopoly law: Concerns and a proposal. Antitrust Law Journal 75(1). 213–229.Search in Google Scholar
Huang, Yong, Elizabeth Xiao-Ru Wang & Roger Xin Zhang. 2014. Essential facilities doctrine and its application in intellectual property space under China’s anti-monopoly law. George Mason Law Review 22. 1103–1119.Search in Google Scholar
Idrees, Rao Qasim, Arfat Yasir & Hussain Naveed. 2022. Pakistan’s current legal regime of consumer protection. Islamabad Law Review 6(2). 1–21.Search in Google Scholar
Li, Qian & Caroline Cauffman. 2025. Abuse of relative dominance by digital platforms: A law and economics perspective. GRUR International 74(3). 217–225. https://doi.org/10.1093/grurint/ikaf001.Search in Google Scholar
Li, K. & W. Shen. 2023. Chunlei Zhao: International investment and dispute settlement: Understanding the China-European Union comprehensive agreement on investment. International Journal of Legal Discourse 8(1). 163–169. https://doi.org/10.1515/ijld-2023-2008.Search in Google Scholar
Liu, Xia (ed.). 2025. An overview on legislation and organization of standardization in China: With special reference to consumer products. In J. Freimuth, S. Kaiser & M. Schädler (eds.), Standardization strategies in China and India: Industrial policy and geopolitics and implications for Europe, 133–150. Fachmedien Wiesbaden: Springer.10.1007/978-3-658-45583-5_8Search in Google Scholar
Lundqvist, Bjorn. 2015. The interface between EU competition law and standard essential patents–from orange-book-standard to the Huawei case. European Competition Journal 11(2-3). 367–401. https://doi.org/10.1080/17441056.2015.1123455.Search in Google Scholar
M/s LinkdotNet Telecom Ltd, M/s Nexlinx (Pvt.) Ltd, and M/s Micronet Broadband (Pvt.) Ltd v Pakistan Telecommunication Company Ltd, CCP Decision No. 15/2008 (30 October 2008).Search in Google Scholar
Mahoney, James. 2004. Comparative-historical methodology. Annual Review of Sociology 30(1). 81–101. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.30.012703.110507.Search in Google Scholar
Majeed, Nasir & Amjad Hilal. 2022. Approaches and methodologies in comparative legal studies: An abstract framework as methodology. Pakistan Languages and Humanities Review 6(3). 474–488. https://doi.org/10.47205/plhr.2022(6-iii)41.Search in Google Scholar
Malkin, Anton. 2022. The made in China challenge to US structural power: Industrial policy, intellectual property and multinational corporations. Review of International Political Economy 29(2). 538–570. https://doi.org/10.1080/09692290.2020.1824930.Search in Google Scholar
Matias, C. & J. Chen. 2024. Judging creativity in AI-generated art: Chinese and Western perspectives on originality in copyright law. International Journal of Legal Discourse 9(2). 339–365. https://doi.org/10.1515/ijld-2024-2015.Search in Google Scholar
Mehmood, Khawaja Asif, Huma Riaz, Farzana Munir & Sidra Ilyas. 2025. Effects of financial development on economic growth in Pakistan: Does FDI matter? Qlantic Journal of Social Sciences 6(1). 324–336. https://doi.org/10.55737/qjss.v-iv.24319.Search in Google Scholar
Migliorini, S. & C. Wang. 2025. The ‘law of code’: The EU and China’s converging legal discourse on regulating algorithms. International Journal of Legal Discourse 10(1). 35–66. https://doi.org/10.1515/ijld-2025-2004.Search in Google Scholar
Möslein, Florian (ed.). 2025. What is special about regulatory competition in the digital realm? In Regulatory competition in the digital economy: Artificial intelligence, data, and platform, 191–192. Switzerland: Springer Nature.10.1007/978-3-031-81089-3_10Search in Google Scholar
Mukhtar, Maryam & Ayesha Siddiqah. 2024. Regulatory reforms for enhancing transparency in merger and acquisition transactions: Lessons from the United Kingdom and applicability in Pakistan. 21. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4996587.Search in Google Scholar
Mushtaq, Shahzada, Khurram Baig Aamir, Syed Wajdan Rafay Bukhari & Ahmad Waqas. 2024. Does Pakistan’s copyright and antitrust law protect creators of AI-Generated content? A comparative study with european Union jurisdictions. Pakistan Journal of Criminal Justice 4(1). 55–76. https://doi.org/10.62585/pjcj.v4i1.51.Search in Google Scholar
Nadeem, Amir. 2024. The enforcement of competition law in Pakistan: An insightful overview. Tanazur 5(4). 20–30.Search in Google Scholar
Nadeem, Amir, Shahzada Aamir Mushtaq & Muhammad Ali Siddiqui. 2025. Regulating the unregulated: Competition law as a tool to combat high drug prices in Pakistan. The Critical Review of Social Sciences Studies 3(1). 1287–1304. https://doi.org/10.59075/xy0w3825.Search in Google Scholar
Orozco, David. 2024. Innovation stakeholders: Developing a sustainable paradigm to integrate intellectual property and corporate social responsibility. American Business Law Journal 61(3). 211–237. https://doi.org/10.1111/ablj.12249.Search in Google Scholar
Pakistan Telecommunication Company Limited v Pakistan Telecommunication Authority [2010] Competition Commission of Pakistan (CCP) Case No. C101/2010.Search in Google Scholar
Papp, W. V. 2024. The goals of competition law: Is. Why antitrust. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4782536.2-4Search in Google Scholar
Psychogiopoulou, E. 2024. Culture vs market integration: Unity and diversity in EU internal market law. In European union economic law and culture, 88–108. Edward Elgar Publishing.10.4337/9781803927138.00012Search in Google Scholar
Rankin, Robert L. 2017. The comparative method. The handbook of historical linguistics. 181–212. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781405166201.ch1.Search in Google Scholar
Roy, Urmi. 2023. Doctrinal and non-doctrinal methods of research: A comparative analysis of both within the field of legal research. Issue 2 Indian Journal of Law and Legal Research 5(2). 1–25.Search in Google Scholar
Safi, A., Y. Chen, A. Qayyum & S. Wahab. 2022. Business strategy, market power, and stock price crash risk: Evidence from China. Risk Management 24(1). 34–54. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41283-021-00080-9.Search in Google Scholar
Sánchez-Lissen, R. & T. Sanz-Díaz. 2025. Ordoliberalism in Spain: Translations of Röpke’s publications. The European Journal of the History of Economic Thought 32(2). 214–229.10.1080/09672567.2024.2396861Search in Google Scholar
Sánchez-Sellero, Pedro & Mohammad Jamal Bataineh. 2024. Efforts to innovate favouring the absorption of foreign direct investment So as to achieve beneficial outcomes from innovation. Systems 12(4). https://doi.org/10.3390/systems12040116.Search in Google Scholar
Schäfer, Quentin B. 2024. Reconsidering the limits of EU competition law on the IP-Competition interface. Journal of European Competition Law & Practice 15(3). 188–196. https://doi.org/10.1093/jeclap/lpae021.Search in Google Scholar
Scott, Morton, M. Fiona, van Jasper & Boom den. 2025. Are competition authorities equipped to combat entrenched digital monopolies? lessons from the US and EU antitrust cases against google. Lessons from the US and EU antitrust cases against Google 31. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.5133787.Search in Google Scholar
Section (3)3 of the Competition Act. 2010 mentioned a list of abusive practices which can be extracted from. https://cc.gov.pk/home/func_comp_act.Search in Google Scholar
Shafiq, Muhammad Salman. 2024. Parallel importation of patented products in Pakistan: The need for a modern patent regime in light of the shanghai cooperation organization. Journal of East Asia & International Law 17(2). 263–275.10.14330/jeail.2024.17.2.01Search in Google Scholar
Singh, Sushma, Singh Anushka, Chandra Ravi, Raj Prakash & Yadav Kumar. 2025. Contemporary stance of compulsory licencing in the Indian pharmaceutical industry. Journal of Intellectual Property Rights (JIPR) 30(3). 361–375.10.56042/jipr.v30i3.9402Search in Google Scholar
Sinha, Aakriti. 2023. Interface between IP laws and competition policy: Safeguard against anti-competitive activities of IP owners. Jus Corpus Law Journal 4. 621–638.Search in Google Scholar
Song, Jianbao. 2025. Methods and standards for the determination of monopolistic conducts in digital platform markets in China. China Legal Sci 13. 35–52.Search in Google Scholar
Sooampon, Sutti (ed.). 2025. Intellectual property: Intangible assets to be protected and exploited. In Fundamentals of managing technology ventures, 75–76. Singapore: Springer Nature.10.1007/978-981-96-2837-7_11Search in Google Scholar
Soomro, Nishan, E. & Yuhui Wang. 2021. Comparative study of competition law between China and Pakistan with special reference to the use of evidences submitted by companies to other legal proceedings. Journal of Politics and Law 14(1). 96–113. https://doi.org/10.5539/jpl.v14n2p96.Search in Google Scholar
Taekema, Sanne & Wibren van der Burg. 2024. Contextualising legal research: A methodological guide, 8–9. Edward Elgar Publishing.10.4337/9781035307395Search in Google Scholar
Tampubolon, Manotar. 2025. Decoding legal ambiguity: The interplay between law and legal semiotics in modern jurisprudence. International Journal for the Semiotics of Law-Revue internationale de Sémiotique juridique. 1–29. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11196-025-10271-2.Search in Google Scholar
TCL Communication Technology Holdings Ltd v Ericsson Inc. (Wuhan Intermediate People’s Court, [2020] E 01 Zhi Min Chu No. 169).Search in Google Scholar
Teulings, C. & M. Huysmans. 2025. Innovation and the capitalist revolution. In The microeconomics of market failures and institutions: An intermediate textbook, 61–86. Cham: Springer Nature Switzerland.10.1007/978-3-031-74987-2_3Search in Google Scholar
Tingwei, D. 2024. Conceptual clarification and classification of patent monopolistic practices in the context of Chinese antitrust law. China Legal Science 12(1). 133–144.Search in Google Scholar
Townley, A. 2022. The use of discourse expertise to control the provision of legal services and establish discursive hegemony in commercial law practice: A case study from Europe. International Journal of Legal Discourse 7(1). 1–31. https://doi.org/10.1515/ijld-2022-2062.Search in Google Scholar
Treacy, Pat & Gobac Iva. 2022. Ketian v hitachi: China’s first compulsory licence? Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice 17(10). 811–822.10.1093/jiplp/jpac077Search in Google Scholar
Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU); https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=legissum:4301854. (accessed 02 June 2025).Search in Google Scholar
Unekbas, Selcukhan. 2022. Competition, privacy, and justifications: Invoking privacy to justify abusive conduct under article 102 TFEU. Journal of Law, Market & Innovation 1(2). 124–138.10.2139/ssrn.4094990Search in Google Scholar
Vaillancourt, David & Sokolov Alex. 2024. Abuse of dominance and competitor Losses-The “Benefit Derived” regime is not fit for purpose. Canadian Competition Law Review 37(1). 109–128.Search in Google Scholar
Vuletić, Dominik. 2025. High risk artificial intelligence systems and legal doctrine of essential facilities: In search for a dynamic model. Interdisciplinary Description of Complex Systems: INDECS 23(1). 72–81. https://doi.org/10.7906/indecs.23.1.4.Search in Google Scholar
Wang, Runhua, Jyh An Lee & Liu Jingwen. 2024. Unwinding NFTs in the shadow of IP law. American Business Law Journal 61(1). 31–55. https://doi.org/10.1111/ablj.12237.Search in Google Scholar
Wang, Xi, Nerina Raja Yusof Raja & Nor Siah Jaharuddin. 2025. Driving SMEs’ sustainable competitive advantage: The role of service innovation, intellectual property protection, continuous innovation performance, and open innovation. Sustainability 17(9). https://doi.org/10.3390/su17094093.Search in Google Scholar
Wu, Peicheng. 2024. Bad faith litigation of intellectual property as a violation of China’s anti-monopoly law: How should the current approach be improved? Asia Pacific Law Review 32(1). 60–80. https://doi.org/10.1080/10192557.2023.2274634.Search in Google Scholar
Wu, T. & Y. Wang. 2023. Examining the first amendment of China’s anti-monopoly law: Suggestions to improve the regulation on monopoly agreements. China-EU Law Journal 9(2). 3. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12689-023-00102-7.Search in Google Scholar
X Wang spoke on. November 2020 while drafting the IP Guidelines at Shanghai Jiao Tong University. See for more details https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s/l1ZkKyRowLswjrlnPsYdZQ.Search in Google Scholar
Zeshan, Muhammad. 2025. Balancing trade and competition in Pakistan. Pakistan Development Review 64(1). 25–52. https://doi.org/10.30541/v64i1pp.25-52.Search in Google Scholar
Zhang, Angela Huyue. 2022. Agility over stability: China’s great reversal in regulating the platform economy. Harvard International Law Journal 63. 457–472.10.2139/ssrn.3892642Search in Google Scholar
Zhang, Y., H. Duan & W. Yang. 2025. Navigating the intersection: How antitrust law can facilitate fair standard essential patent licensing in China. Computer Law & Security Report 57. 106146. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clsr.2025.106146.Search in Google Scholar
Zhong, Chun & Bo Yuan. 2025. Sword of damocles? Assessing the anti-suit injunction of standard essential patents in China. Queen Mary Journal of Intellectual Property 15(1). 80–100. https://doi.org/10.4337/qmjip.2025.01.04.Search in Google Scholar
© 2025 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
