Short Reads

General Court upholds Commission's decision that reverse payment settlements constitute a 'by object' infringement

General Court upholds Commission's decision that reverse payment settlements constitute a 'by object' infringement

General Court upholds Commission's decision that reverse payment settlements constitute a 'by object' infringement

03.10.2016 NL law

On 8 September 2016, the General Court ("GC") dismissed in their entirety the appeals brought by Lundbeck and the generic companies Alpharma, Merck KGa, Generics UK, Arrow and Ranbaxy against the European Commission's "reverse payment settlements" decision.

On the basis of these settlements, the generic companies, in exchange for a value transfer, could not launch a generic version of Lundbeck's branded citalopram for the duration of the agreements. The settlements were in part motivated by the fact that – whilst Lundbeck's initial patents had expired – it still had patents in place covering the product's manufacturing process. The GC judgments constitute the first EU court decisions ruling on the qualification of reverse payment settlements under EU antitrust law.

First, the GC confirmed that the Commission was correct to establish that Lundbeck and the generic companies were potential competitors when signing these settlements. The GC rejected Lundbeck's claim that the generic companies should not be considered as potential competitors, since its process patents were presumed to be valid under EU law as a result of which legal market entry was precluded. The GC found that the generic companies had real concrete possibilities to enter the market at the time that the agreements were concluded. The steps taken by the generic companies, such as obtaining or applying for a market authorization, demonstrated this possibility. Those factual circumstances trump any presumption of validity of intellectual property, according to the GC. 

The GC also agreed with the Commission that the settlements constitute a restriction of competition by object. In reaching this conclusion the Commission took several factors into account, such as the disproportionate nature of the reverse payments and the absence of provisions that would allow the generic companies to enter the market after the termination of the agreements, without having to fear infringement actions brought by Lundbeck. The GC found, contrary to Lundbeck's claim,  that the Commission correctly considered the value transfers as problematic, as they broadly corresponded to the profits that the generic companies could have made when entering the market or to the damages they would have obtained if they had successfully challenged Lundbeck's patents. As a result, they were high enough to remove the generic companies' incentive to enter the market and thus eliminated the competitive pressure. Consequently, the GC concluded that the settlements were comparable to market exclusion agreements and as such they constituted a restriction of competition by object.

Moreover, the GC rejected claims that the Commission should have applied the "scope of the patent" test and taken into account that the contractual restrictions did not exceed the scope of Lundbeck's process patents. The GC noted that the concept of restriction of competition by object does not include or allow for a "scope of the patent" test. The GC found that even if the restrictions imposed through the settlements potentially fell within the scope of Lundbeck's patents, these restrictions were not objectively necessary to protect the patents, as they could have been achieved through other paths, such as litigation. Finally, the GC rejected arguments relating to the alleged efficiencies brought by the settlements and errors in the calculation of the fines.

In view of the controversial nature of a significant part of the information included in the GC's decision, we believe that appeals will be lodged in the near future.

 

This article was published in the Competition Law Newsletter of October 2016. Other articles in this newsletter:

  1. Court of Justice ends Pilkington's fight against fine in the car glass cartel
  2. General Court upholds Commission's decision that reverse payment settlements constitute a 'by object' infringement
  3. European Commission puts price signalling on the agenda
  4. European Commission orders Ireland to recover illegal tax benefits worth up to €13 billion from Apple
  5. Commission publishes Preliminary Report on the e-commerce sector inquiry
  6. Brussels Court of Appeal confirms interim measures against exclusive TV broadcasting rights

Team

Related news

09.01.2020 NL law
Deleting WhatsApp chats during dawn raids may cost you dearly

Short Reads - Companies should be aware that the Dutch competition authority (ACM) will not only examine electronic records and emails, but can also check WhatsApp messages during dawn raids. The ACM recently imposed a fine of EUR 1.84 million on a company for non-cooperation with a dawn raid; its highest fine so far for non-cooperation. Several of the company’s employees had left WhatsApp groups and deleted chats before handing over their mobile phones for inspection.

Read more

16.01.2020 NL law
De Amsterdamse milieuzone voor brom- en snorfietsen: voertuigen van een bepaald jaar weren is mogelijk bij ontbreken van een redelijk alternatief

Short Reads - ABRvS 20 november 2019, ECLI:NL:RVS:2019:3865 Deze blog is het vierde deel in een reeks Stibbeblogs over gemeentelijke milieuzones. In 2017 oordeelde de Afdeling over de milieuzone voor personen- en bestelauto’s met dieselmotoren in Utrecht. In 2018 presenteerde de staatssecretaris van Infrastructuur en Waterstaat haar beleid voor harmonisatie van uiteenlopende gemeentelijke milieuzones. Een jaar geleden maakten wij in een FAQ de balans op over de harmonisatie van milieuzones.

Read more

09.01.2020 NL law
Access to the file in Dutch competition procedures: too little too late?

Short Reads - Companies beware: the ACM’s and European Commission’s approach to access to the file are not aligned. According to an interim relief judge, the ACM cannot be forced to grant a company access to a broader set of documents in competition procedures. A potential error in the administrative procedure can be remedied before a court at a later stage. This is different to the right to access to the Commission’s file during administrative procedures, as acknowledged in EU case law.

Read more

10.01.2020 NL law
Is het mededingingsrecht de reddingsboei van zwakke zzp’ers?

Articles - Het toenemende aantal zzp'ers heeft ook mededingingsrechtelijke gevolgen. Volgens de ACM werkt de markt namelijk niet goed als zzp'ers door lage uurtarieven onder het bestaansminimum komen. Jan Truijens Martinez en Simone Evans bespreken in het Tijdschrift voor Arbeidsrecht in Context hoe eventuele belemmeringen die het mededingingsrecht opwerpt bij de bescherming van zzp'ers kunnen worden beperkt en of het mededingingsrecht eigenlijk wel het juiste instrument daarvoor is? 

Read more

09.01.2020 NL law
Competition rules and globalisation to face off in 2020

Short Reads - 2020 will likely revolve around the question whether competition rules should yield to globalisation and digitisation, with suggestions ranging from mere tweaks to competition rules to complementary regulation. Greater cooperation across data protection, consumer protection and competition law appears inevitable. Speedier solutions in more informal settings may become a reality, alongside more frequent use of behavioural remedies.

Read more

Our website uses functional cookies for the functioning of the website and analytic cookies that enable us to generate aggregated visitor data. We also use other cookies, such as third party tracking cookies - please indicate whether you agree to the use of these other cookies:

Privacy – en cookieverklaring