Peter L’Ecluse

Van Bael & Bellis (Brussels)
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

Polybius (Brussels)

Articles

11782 Bulletin

Peter L’Ecluse The Antwerp Enterprise Court refers request for preliminary ruling to the EU Court of Justice in excessive pricing case between festival organisers (SABAM / BVBA / Wecandance)

94

On 10 May 2019, the Antwerp Enterprise Court (the “Court”) referred a request for a preliminary ruling to the Court of Justice of the European Union (the “ECJ”) in two separate cases between Belgian festival organisers Weareone. World BVBA (the organisers of Tomorrowland) and Wecandance NV (the (...)

Peter L’Ecluse The Hague Court of Appeal delivers its judgment on an alleged infringement of patent essential to the Universal Mobile Telecommunications System standard (Philips / ASUS)

113

On 7 May 2019, the Court of Appeal of the Hague delivered its judgment in a case pitting Philips against ASUS regarding the alleged infringement of Philips’ European patent EP 1 623 511, which was considered essential to the High Speed Uplink Packet Access (“HSUPA”) protocol of the Universal (...)

Peter L’Ecluse The Paris Court of Appeal delivers the first judgement on FRAND terms and applies the French legislation implementing the trade secrets directive (Conversant / LG)

162

On 16 April 2019, the Paris Court of Appeal delivered a judgment in Conversant v. LG, a case dealing with the concept of licensing under fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory (“FRAND”) terms. While the court did not set a much-anticipated FRAND royalty rate, the case is noteworthy because of (...)

Peter L’Ecluse The EU Court of Justice clarifies exhaustion of trademark principles and broadens the interpretation of economic links between trademark owners (Schweppes / Red Paralela)

500

On 20 December 2017, the Court of Justice of the European Union (“ECJ”) handed down its judgment in Case C-291/16 Schweppes v Red Paralela and Others. The ECJ held that the owner of a trademark may not oppose the parallel importation of goods bearing an identical trademark but originating in (...)

Peter L’Ecluse The EU Commission publishes roadmap on Standard Essential Patents

381

On 10 April 2017, the European Commission published its roadmap on “Standard Essential Patents for a European digitalised economy” (the “Roadmap”) with the aim of supporting the development of the 5G mobile communications standard (“5G”) and the Internet of Things (“IoT”) universe. A standard (...)

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)

259

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 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)

239

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 activity in ophthalmologic medicines market (Novartis / Roche)

184

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)

204

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+)

150

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)

121

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 EU Court of First Instance examines a recourse against Commission’s decision to reject complaint against a leading alcohol manufacturer (Protégé International)

125

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 IP and behavioral remedies might be appropriate in certain circumstances

105

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