Short Reads

Recent European Commission merger decisions signal an increased focus on innovation

Recent European Commission merger decisions signal an increased focus

Recent European Commission merger decisions signal an increased focus on innovation

03.07.2017

On 27 March 2017, the European Commission approved a merger between chemical companies Dow and DuPont subject to major remedies, including the divestment of DuPont's global R&D organisation. In this case, the Commission's review extended to the merger's potential impact on innovation "at the overall industry level". 

The Commission considered that innovation is a key competitive parameter in the pesticides industry. According to the Commission, post-merger, only three integrated players could effectively compete with Dow/DuPont at a global level throughout the entire (R&D) value chain (from discovering new active ingredients, to the manufacture and sale of final products). The Commission relied on evidence showing that the parties intended to cut back on R&D expenditure, and that the merged entity would have less incentives to innovate than Dow and DuPont would have separately. As a result, the Commission found that the merger would have significantly reduced "innovation competition" for pesticides, and called for the divestment of the vast majority of DuPont's global R&D organisation.

The importance of "innovation" as an assessment parameter under EU merger control law is not particularly new and is reflected in the Commission's horizontal merger guidelines (the Guidelines). The Guidelines, for example, recognise that a merger between two important innovators developing competing "pipeline" products (in a specific product market) may, under certain conditions, impede competition.

The assessment of such "pipeline overlaps" has played a role in numerous pharmaceutical merger decisions over the years. Traditionally, the Commission focused its review on pipeline products that have entered late phase (phase III) clinical trials. Such products have a higher likelihood of entering the market within a reasonably foreseeable timeframe. In recent years, however, the Commission has extended its review to products in the early stages of development, many of which may never be marketed. In Novartis/GSK Oncology, for example, the Commission analysed the merger's potential impact on the parties' overall clinical research programmes for ovarian and skin cancer treatments, including very early phase (phase I) pipeline products. More recently, on 9 June 2017, the Commission cleared a merger between J&J and Actelion, subject to commitments ensuring that the parties' phase II pipeline products would not be delayed or discontinued.

These developments show that – at least in innovation intensive industries – the Commission will continue to review the merging parties' full R&D portfolios in detail. This may require significant additional preparatory work (e.g. in terms of document collection and preparing economic analyses) before mergers are filed.

This article was published in the Competition Law Newsletter of July 2017. Other articles in this newsletter:

  1. Google gets a record EUR 2.42 billion antitrust fine for its shopping service
  2. ACM fines Dutch rail operator (NS) for an alleged abuse of dominance
  3. New Belgian Act on damage claims for competition law infringements

Team

Related news

01.08.2019 NL law
General court dismisses all five appeals in the optical disk drives cartel

Short Reads - The General Court recently upheld a Commission decision finding that suppliers of optical disk drives colluded in bids for sales to Dell and HP by engaging in a network of parallel bilateral contacts over a multi-year period. The General Court rejected applicants' arguments regarding the Commission's fining methodology, including that the Commission ought to have provided reasons for not departing from the general methodology set out in its 2006 Guidelines.

Read more

14.08.2019 BE law
Verklaring van openbaar nut is geen "project" in de zin van de MER-regelgeving

Articles - In een recent arrest bevestigt de Raad van State dat "verklaringen van openbaar nut", bedoeld in artikel 10 van de wet van 12 april 1965 betreffende het vervoer van gasachtige produkten en andere door middel van leidingen niet onder het begrip "project" uit de project-MER-regelgeving valt. Of hetzelfde geldt voor elk type gelijkaardige administratieve toelating, is daarmee evenwel nog niet gezegd. Niettemin geeft de Raad met zijn arrest een belangrijk signaal dat niet elke mogelijke toelating onder de project-MER-regelgeving valt.

Read more

01.08.2019 NL law
Brand owners beware: Commission tough on cross-border sales restrictions

Short Reads - The European Commission recently imposed a EUR 6.2 million fine on Hello Kitty owner Sanrio for preventing its licensees from selling licensed merchandising products across the entire EEA. Sanrio is the second licensor (after Nike) to be fined for imposing territorial sales restrictions on its non-exclusive licensees for licensed merchandise. A third investigation into allegedly similar practices by Universal Studios is ongoing. The case confirms the Commission's determination to tackle these practices, regardless of type or form.

Read more

08.08.2019 BE law
Regulating online platforms: piece of the puzzle

Articles - The new Regulation no. 2019/1150 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 June 2019 on promoting fairness and transparency for business users of online intermediation services, applicable as of 12 July 2020, is another piece of the puzzle regulating online platforms, this time focussing on the supply side of the platforms.

Read more

01.08.2019 NL law
Call of duty: Commission must state reasons when straying from its guidelines

Short Reads - The European Commission has lost a second battle concerning its EUR 15 million fine imposed upon interdealer broker ICAP, this time before the European Court of Justice. The Court upheld the previous judgment of the General Court on the basis of the Commission's failure to state reasons concerning its fining methodology of cartel facilitator ICAP. This may lead to more reasoned Commission decisions in the future - deterrence of cartel behaviour does not justify keeping the methodology for setting the fines as a 'black box'.

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