Seminar

22 November 2017: Seminar on Biosimilars & Competition Law

22 November 2017: Seminar on Biosimilars & Competition Law

22 November 2017: Seminar on Biosimilars & Competition Law

16.10.2017 NL law

On Wednesday 22 November 2017, Stibbe will organise a seminar on Biosimilars & Competition Law in Brussels. This seminar will be co-organized by competition lawyers from Stibbe and competition economists from CRA so as to cover both legal and economic angles relevant to this increasingly important field. 

Given the ever increasing economic significance of biologics in the pharmaceutical space – as well as signals from regulators that this field will come into focus shortly – it  is time to explore the implications of the competition rules for business behavior in this area. This includes a discussion of the following topics/questions: 

  • What can we expect from competition authorities in this space?
  • To what extent do the competition law principles developed for synthetic drugs apply to the biological space?
  • How does this play out in the context of life cycle management?  
  • What stance do authorities take in merger control cases involving biologics?
  • What about pricing strategies? Is there more reason for concern following cases like Aspen (EU) and Pfizer (UK)?

Our intention is to go beyond scratching the surface on these topics in order to provide guidance for pharmaceutical companies in an area which we feel is receiving insufficient attention in the competition law domain. 

For more information and to register, please send an email to: StibbeEvents@Stibbe.com.

A provisional program can be found below: 

  • 12:00 - 12:30: Registration
  • 12:30 - 12:45:  Introduction by chair - Stibbe/CRA
  • 12:45 - 13:15: Keynote speech by Paul Paul Csiszár, Director of "Basic Industries, Manufacturing and Agriculture", responsible for the Commission’s pharma unit
  • 13:15 - 13:45: Industry trends in biosimilars - Tim Wilsdon, CRA  
  • 13:45 - 14:30: Biologics in EU merger control: current status and likely issues in the future - Stibbe
  • 14:30 - 15:00: Break
  • 15:00 - 15:45: Competition law boundaries of life cycle management strategies: application to the biologics space - Stibbe
  • 15:45 - 16:30: Pricing practices & antitrust: law and economics - Raphaël De Coninck, CRA
  • 16:30 - 16: 45: Closing
  • 16:45 - 17:30: Drink

When: 22 November 2017 from 12.00 -17.30.

Where: Stibbe office: Central Plaza - Loksumstraat 25 Rue de Loxum - 1000 Brussels

stibbe_logo_background_01    logo - CRA

 

Team

Related news

06.05.2021 EU law
Abuse of economic dependence: lessons drawn from the first judgments

Short Reads - On 22 August 2020, the ban on abuse of economic dependence was implemented in Belgium (Article IV.2/1 of the Code of Economic Law). Now that almost a year has passed and the first judgments have been rendered, we assess what first lessons can be drawn from these judgments. The rulings show that the ban is regularly relied upon in court and has lowered the hurdle for plaintiffs to make their case.

Read more

01.04.2021 NL law
Slovak Telekom: ECJ on essentials of the ‘essential facilities’ doctrine

Short Reads - Only dominant companies with a “genuinely tight grip” on the market can be forced to grant rivals access to their infrastructure. According to the ECJ’s rulings in Slovak Telekom and Deutsche Telekom, it is only in this scenario that the question of indispensability of the access for rivals comes into play. In the assessment of practices other than access refusal, indispensability may be indicative of a potential abuse of a dominant position, but is not a required condition.

Read more

01.04.2021 NL law
Pay-for-delay saga ends with nothing new; but pharma quest continues

Short Reads - On 25 March 2021, the ECJ ended the Lundbeck pay-for-delay saga by dismissing the appeals from Lundbeck and five generic manufacturers against a European Commission ‘pay-for-delay’ decision. Following its recent Paroxetine judgment, the ECJ found that Lundbeck’s process patents did not preclude generic companies being viewed as potential competitors, particularly since the patents did not represent an insurmountable barrier to entry. In addition, the patent settlement agreements constituted infringements "by object".

Read more