|
KMID : 1234820220230010081
|
|
Korean Society of Law and Medicine
2022 Volume.23 No. 1 p.81 ~ p.119
|
|
|
A Review on the Dominant Undertaking’s Abuse in the Medical Device Market
|
|
Jeong Jae-Hun
|
|
|
Abstract
|
|
|
Medical device market is strongly related with health care market. Public regulation in medical device market tends to be more lenient than health care market. In this market, competition law, administrative law and intellectual property law are intertwined, and thereby a variety of legal issues could be developed.
Recently, dominant undertaking’s abuse case was dealt with KFTC(Korea Fair Trade Commission) and Seoul High Court. The issues were whether dominant undertaking discriminated trading partners and this discrimination was anticompetitive. In this case, Seoul High Court revoked the KFTC’s decision, holding that the undertaking did not harm competition, though it has dominant power in the relevant medical device market.
This decision would be a meaningful precedent, not only that there have been small numbers of dominance abuse cases in Korea, but also that this case happened in medical device market. This case dealt with various issues like market definition, market power, alleged abuse and its anticompetitive effect.
The court held that medical device markets are distinguished from medical device repairing market. However, the court did not clarify that medical device repairing market is a single branded market only for repairing the plaintiff’s medical devices. Second, plaintiff’s dominance is based on the lock-in effect, which means that hospitals could not switch devices like CT or MRI from plaintiff to other competitors. This could be supplemented from the fact that medical devices are expensive and the using period are significantly long. However market definition based on single branded market theory could be applied in rare and exceptional cases. Therefore the general application of single branded market theory might result in overestimate of market power.
This type of abuse pattern requires improper condition contrary to resonable trade practice. KFTC asserted free charge for plaintiff’s copy right. However, it is not clear whether the cases for free charge are general or not. Even if so, the intention and motive of providers for free charge should be proved.
The main issue of anticompetitive effect was whether plaintiff raised rival’s cost. Competitor’s cost was increased due to plaintiff’s copy right and its license fee. However the charge for license could be within the scope of fair and legal exercise of copy right. If competitors are excluded due to legal exercise of copy right or efficiency, the exclusionary abuse could not be proved.
|
|
|
KEYWORD
|
|
|
Medical device market, Dominant undertaking’s abuse, Discrimination, Raising rival’s cost effect, Foreclosure effect
|
|
|
FullTexts / Linksout information
|
|
|
|
|
|
Listed journal information
|
|
|
|