<![CDATA[Objective: Shifts in global investment dynamics have transformed cross-border equity acquisitions from mere commercial transactions into instruments of strategic technology control. This study aims to analyze the legal implications of cross-border acquisitions on the doctrine of corporate control over strategic intellectual property, as well as to establish a legal balance between the rights to protect foreign investors and the state’s authority to intervene. Method: Using doctrinal legal research methods and legislative, conceptual, and comparative approaches, as well as a case study of the Nexperia B.V.–Wingtech Technology dispute. Results: The results of this study reveal two main findings. First, the acquisition of a controlling interest triggers a re-convergence of the Berle & Means doctrine (1932), whereby the acquiring party obtains full corporate control to legally exploit and distribute a bundle of intellectual property assets, particularly Integrated Circuit Layout Designs (ICLDs). Second, the Dutch government’s ex-post intervention through the Goods Availability Act, which separates economic ownership from corporate control, constitutes an application of the essential security exception doctrine. However, the escalation of cross-border disputes, including retaliatory measures by the Chinese courts, highlights the importance of testing the principle of proportionality through a four-part test to prevent ex-post interventions from turning into protectionism that undermines legal certainty in international investment. Novelty: This study offers novelty by showing how cross-border acquisitions reconverge the Berle & Means doctrine of corporate control over strategic intellectual property, by framing the Dutch ex-post intervention through the Goods Availability Act as an application of the essential security exception doctrine, and by proposing a proportionality four-part test to prevent such interventions from becoming protectionism that undermines legal certainty in international investment.]]>
