Peter L’Ecluse

Van Bael & Bellis
Lawyer (Partner)

Peter L’Ecluse is a partner at Van Bael & Bellis in Brussels. He specialises in life sciences, competition law, litigation and intellectual property. In life sciences, Peter is active in a range of areas, including competition law, registration, pricing and reimbursement matters and advertising issues. He has been successful before both civil courts and Belgium’s administrative court, the Council of State, in challenging reimbursement decisions and rules imposing prescription requirements on physicians. Peter’s litigation practice focuses on complex matters involving both EU and Belgian law. For example, Peter represented a US directories publisher in over 30 cases before the Belgian courts, the European courts, the European Commission and the telecommunications regulator against Belgium’s incumbent telecommunications operator. Peter was successful in defending and later helping to expand the client’s business franchise. The cases raised delicate issues of market liberalisation, market regulation, competition and IP rights. Peter’s competition practice has a heavy focus on life sciences, but Peter has also been involved in most of the significant cases arising before the Belgian competition authorities with regard to merger control, abuse of dominance and procedural issues such as access to file. Peter speaks English, Dutch and French.

Linked author

White & Case (Brussels)

Articles

6040 Bulletin

Peter L’Ecluse The EU Court of Justice rules that payment of royalties under a licence agreement where the patent was held invalid may be compatible with Article 101 TFEU (Genentech / Hoechst)

148

On 7 July 2016, the Court of Justice of the European Union (the “ECJ”) issued its judgment on a request for a preliminary ruling from the Paris Court of Appeal, which had enquired whether Article 101 TFEU precludes a licensee from paying royalties pursuant to a licensing agreement when the patent (...)

Peter L’Ecluse ECJ Advocate General Wathelet concludes that payment of royalties under a licence agreement where the patent was held invalid may be compatible with Article 101 TFEU (Genentech / Hoechst)

145

On 17 March 2016, Advocate General Wathelet issued his opinion on a request for a preliminary ruling from the Paris Court of Appeal, which inquired as to whether Article 101 TFEU precludes a licensee from paying royalties pursuant to a licensing agreement when the patent, which is the subject (...)

Peter L’Ecluse The Italian Competition Authority opens investigation against pharmaceutical companies over suspected cartel in ophthalmologic medicines market (Novartis and Roche)

91

On 14 February 2013, the Italian Competition Authority (the “Authority”) announced that it had opened an investigation against Genentech Inc., Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd, Novartis AG, Novartis Farma S.p.A. and Roche S.p.A., over suspicions that these may have been operating an illegal cartel in (...)

Jerome Dickinson, Peter L’Ecluse The Italian Council of State reinstates a € 5.1 M fine initially imposed on a pharmaceutical company by the NCA for its alleged abuse of dominant position in the market for the production and commercialisation of fosetyl-based fungicides (Bayer)

113

On 22 January 2013, it was reported that the Italian Council of State – Italy’s highest jurisdiction in competition cases – had reinstated a € 5.1 million fine against Bayer initially imposed on the company by the Italian Competition Authority (“ICA”) for its alleged abuse of dominant position (...)

Peter L’Ecluse The Brussels Court of Appeal confirms Competition Council’s decision amending condition imposed on cable network operator’s acquisition of pay-TV provider (Telenet / Canal+)

84

In a judgment of 17 May 2011, the Brussels Court of Appeal confirmed the Belgian Competition Council’s decision of 29 November 2010 amending a condition that had been imposed in 2003 on cable network operator Telenet’s acquisition of pay-TV provider Canal+. The condition in question (...)

Peter L’Ecluse The French Supreme Court agrees with European Court of Justice that a trademark owner can oppose the resale of its luxury goods by discount stores (Caud/Chanel)

59

In its recently published judgment in Caud/Chanel, the French Supreme Court (Cour de Cassation) followed the approach of the European Court of Justice (“ECJ”) in Copad/Christian Dior Coutureconcerning the exhaustion of trademark rights in respect of luxury goods. In that judgment, the ECJ held (...)

Peter L’Ecluse The European Court of Justice rules that a trade mark owner can oppose the resale of his luxury goods by discount stores (Copad, Christian Dior couture)

78

On 23 April 2009, in its judgment in Case C-59/08 Copad SA v Christian Dior couture SA, the European Court of Justice (“ECJ”) shed further light on the often contentious topic of exhaustion of trade mark rights in respect of luxury goods. Christian Dior Couture SA (“Dior”) had concluded a licence (...)

Peter L’Ecluse The European Court of First Instance examines a recourse against Commission’s decision to reject complaint against a leading alcohol manufacturer (Protégé International)

80

On 16 May 2009, a notice was published in the Official Journal of the EU announcing that Protégé International is taking the European Commission to court over its January 2009 decision to reject a competition law complaint brought by Protégé International against Pernod Ricard. Protégé (...)

Peter L’Ecluse The UK Competition Commission publishes its proposed new merger remedy guidelines, which for the first time recognise the possibility that intellectual property (“IP”) and behavioral remedies might be appropriate in certain circumstances

59

On 19 May 2008, the UK Competition Commission (the “CC”) published its proposed new merger remedy guidelines, which for the first time recognise the possibility that intellectual property (“IP”) and behavioural remedies might be appropriate in certain circumstances. The draft guidelines are (...)

Send a message