• abuses of IPRs
• intellectual property
• functionalization of IPRs
• comparative property law
• social function of IPRs

This paper will be articulated under a three-step-made analysis: (1) descriptive; (2) functional and (3) normative. Mostly, the latest trends in curtailing dysfunctional exercises of IPRs will be described.
Primarily, the descriptive part (1) will glimpse at some selected case studies of simultaneous expansionist and restricting forces in the EU context.
Specifically, this research paper will hold as examples the over-expansionism of (1.1) copyright; (1.2) patent, by exploring the intertwined abuses of IPRs which take place in the interface between competition laws and intellectual property in Europe. Despite the notable differences, this double-track description allows to outline the problematic similarities in the evolutionary patterns.
We will observe how the CJEU frequently eschewed conceptual problems and resorted to a self-contradictory assessment of misconducts in the intellectual property arena.
Thereafter, the functional analysis (2) will point out the necessity to (socially) functionalize IPRs, by relying on their internal limits, to prevent abuses under a unitary doctrinal framework.
This section is two-fold.
Firstly, (2.1) we will attempt to explain the unfeasibility of those proportionality rules, which aim at achieving functionalization by relying on external (non-IP-related) factors, such as freedom of expression. The critique will be conducted by drawing the attention on US and EU approach towards copyright E&Ls. It could be argued that relying on external bodies of law (antitrust in the case of patent rights and fundamental rights embedded in the CFREU in the case of copyright exceptions) produced piecemeal ineffective results and exacerbated uncertainty (2.2).
Subsequently, the truly functional part (2.3) will shift the attention on the shy attempts of functionalizing IPRs under the civilian abuse of right theory. Particularly, we will investigate how the doctrine has been deployed in patent litigation and, occasionally, also in copyright case law.
Thus, we will compare these efforts with the US doctrine of misuse and related concepts (2.4).
Hence (3), the normative part will focus on the prototypical nuances that an abstract theory of (social) function should have to work effectively within intellectual property.
Section (3.1) will go back at the civilian doctrinal roots of the abuse of right theory from a comparative doctrinal perspective. We will observe how the abuse of right is indissolubly connected with the social function of private rights, and it was developed in real property law to fight against bad faith-driven abuses.
Section (3.2) will be dedicated to detecting paradigms to apply an abuse of right-alike reasoning in intellectual property case law and stifle dysfunctional exercises of IPRs.
We will hint at real property doctrines mostly developed in US and German real property case law, considering the social function of property rights as a guideline.
As they start from a strong functionalization of property rights, these paradigms constitute a useful standpoint to delineate a feasible proportionality test for abuses. In line with it, we will finally attempt to conceptualize the ideal features that a socially oriented functionalization of IPRs should have to work effectively against expansive forces.