umraniye escort pendik escort
maderba.com
implant
olabahis
canli poker siteleri meritslot oleybet giris adresi betgaranti
escort antalya
istanbul escort
sirinevler escort
antalya eskort bayan
brazzers
sikis
bodrum escort
Articles

Stibbe authors the Belgian chapter of the Pharmaceutical IP and Competition Law Review

Stibbe authors the Belgian chapter of the pharmaceutical IP and compe

Stibbe authors the Belgian chapter of the Pharmaceutical IP and Competition Law Review

03.11.2020 BE law

Philippe Campolini, Sophie Van Besien, Ignace Vernimme and Peter Wytinck authored the Belgian Chapter of the Pharmaceutical Intellectual Property and Competition Law Review. 

 

Philippe Campolini, Sophie Van Besien, Ignace Vernimme and Peter Wytinck authored the Belgian Chapter of the Pharmaceutical Intellectual Property and Competition Law Review, a practical, business-focused analysis of recent changes and developments, their effects, and a look forward at expected trends in the sector. ​

In this chapter, the authors first briefly present the general Belgian legislative and regulatory framework and examine a series of domestic peculiarities for new drugs, generics, biologics and biosimilars. Next, the interfaces between the pharmaceutical sector and patent law are analysed. To conclude, the authors focus on the interfaces between the pharmaceutical sector and competition law. In this regard, an overview of the competition enforcers, their role in merger control and approach to anticompetitive behaviours in the pharmaceutical sector is provided.

Click here for an overview of the Review's content​, and here to read the Belgian chapter​.​

Reproduced with permission from Law Business Research Ltd
This article was first published in September 2020.

Team

Related news

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
Collective action stopped due to lack of benefit for class members

Short Reads - On 9 December 2020, the Amsterdam District Court (the “Court”) declared a foundation inadmissible in a collective action regarding alleged manipulation of LIBOR, EURIBOR and other interest rate benchmarks. The foundation sought declaratory judgments that Rabobank, UBS, Lloyds Bank and ICAP (the “defendants”) had engaged in wrongful conduct and unjust enrichment vis-à-vis the class members.

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

01.04.2021 NL law
ECJ in Pometon: beware of too much info in staggered hybrid proceedings

Short Reads - In hybrid cartel proceedings (in which one party opts out of settlement), settlement decisions should not pre-judge the outcome of the Commission's investigation into non-settling parties. When the Commission publishes the settlement decision before the decision imposing a fine on the non-settling party, it must be careful in its drafting, the European Court of Justice confirmed. Furthermore, differences in the fining methodology applied to (similarly placed) settling and non-settling parties will have to be objectively justified and sufficiently reasoned.

Read more