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 authors

Polybius (Brussels)
Van Bael & Bellis (Brussels)
Van Bael & Bellis (Brussels)

Articles

15237 Bulletin

Peter L’Ecluse, Catherine Longeval, Koen T’Syen The Romanian Competition Authority fines €2.5 million a pharmaceutical company for failure to observe commitments in an abuse of dominance probe (GlaxoSmithKline)

125

The Romanian Competition Authority announced on 25 August 2020 that it imposed a fine of 11.9 million lei (approximately EUR 2.5 million) on GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) for its failure to observe in full commitments which it had given earlier to allow the competition authority to terminate an inquiry (...)

Peter L’Ecluse, Catherine Longeval, Koen T’Syen The EU Commission starts a market test on the proposed commitments offered by a pharmaceutical company to address the Commission’s concerns over excessive pricing for a range of off-patent cancer medicines (Aspen)

141

Today, the European Commission (the Commission) started a market test inviting comments from interested parties on commitments offered by Aspen Pharmacare Holdings (Aspen) to address the Commission’s concerns over excessive pricing for a range of off-patent cancer medicines (see, attached (...)

Peter L’Ecluse The UK High Court rules that complying with a court-ordered disclosure in patent infringement proceedings between pharmaceutical companies does not breach competition law (Teva / Chiesi)

28

On 2 June 2020, the UK High Court delivered a judgment in a case pitting pharmaceutical companies Teva UK Limited (“Teva”) against Chiesi Farmaceutici (“Chiesi”) in which Mr Justice Birss ruled that complying with a court-ordered disclosure in patent infringement proceedings does not breach Article (...)

Koen T’Syen, Peter L’Ecluse, Catherine Longeval The Italian Competition Authority approves a distribution scheme allowing disposable surgical masks to be sold in pharmacies and health retail outlets as a response to the COVID-19 pandemic

371

On 1 June 2020, the Italian competition authority (“L’Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato”) authorised a scheme that would allow disposable surgical masks to be distributed and sold in pharmacies and health product retail outlets (see, attached press release). It did so at the request (...)

Peter L’Ecluse The German Federal Court of Justice issues a judgment in a case involving SEP licensing negotiations on FRAND terms between two companies active in the mobile telecommunication market (Sisvel / Haier)

46

On 5 May 2020, the German Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof - the “FCJ”) delivered a judgment in a case pitting Sisvel against Haier which deals with the licensing of Standard Essential Patents (“SEP”) on terms that are fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory (“FRAND”). This is the first (...)

Peter L’Ecluse The Dutch Competition Authority expresses its satisfaction with commitments made by a pharmaceutical company regarding the supply of testing material for a drug test (Roche)

57

On 3 April 2020, the Dutch competition authority (Autoriteit Consument en Markt or “ACM”) published a press release expressing its satisfaction with commitments made by Roche Diagnostics (“Roche”) regarding the supply of testing materials for the SARS- CoV-2 test. Roche, which the ACM says has a (...)

Peter L’Ecluse The German Regional Court of Munich provides a guidance document which sets out how the Court intends to apply a landmark ruling of the EU Court of Justice (Huawei / ZTE)

107

In February 2020, the Regional Court of Munich published a guidance document that sets out how that court intends to apply the landmark ruling of the Court of Justice of the European Union (the “ECJ”) in Huawei v. ZTE (Case C-170/13). The ECJ’s ruling provided the practical steps which Standard (...)

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

175

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 (Asus / Philips)

234

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)

261

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)

584

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 Court of Justice AG Mengozzi takes a new look at the exhaustion of trademark rights and seems prepared to accept the erosion of such rights (Schweppes)

212

On 12 September 2017, Advocate General Mengozzi (“AG”) delivered an opinion in the Schweppes case in the context of a request for a preliminary ruling to the Court of Justice of the European Union (“ECJ”) from a Spanish Court. In particular, the AG proposed to develop the case-law on the exhaustion (...)

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)

296

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)

269

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 the ophthalmologic medicines market (Roche / Novartis)

214

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)

239

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+)

190

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

151

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 Haarlem District Court rules on a dispute between the Dutch collecting society and the UK collecting society regarding the licensing of portfolio (BUMA / PRS)

319

In a judgment dated 19 August 2008 (published only recently), the District Court of Haarlem in the Netherlands ruled on a dispute between the Dutch collecting society BUMA (“BUMA”) and the UK collecting society Performing Right Society Limited (“PRS”), regarding the licensing by BUMA of PRS‘ (...)

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

126

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