Search results - Concurrences

9 Jul 2020 B

The UK Competition Authority fines 3 pharmaceutical companies £2.3 million for anti-competitive agreement in the supply of life-saving drug fludrocortisone and secures £8 million in damages for the National Health Service (Aspen / Tiofarma / Amilco)

UK Competition Authority • July 2020

CMA levies fines of £2.3m and secures £8m for NHS in pharma probe* The CMA has formally concluded that 3 pharmaceutical companies took part in an illegal arrangement in relation to the supply of life-saving medicine. The investigation by the Competition and Markets Authority into the supply of (...)

8 Jun 2020 B

The US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois dismisses antitrust case challenging patent thicket (Humira)

Michael A. Carrier • September 2020

On June 8, 2020, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois granted defendants’ motion to dismiss an antitrust case challenging behavior arising out of a massive collection of patents known as a “patent thicket.” In re Humira (Adalimumab) Antitrust Litigation, 2020 WL 3051309 (...)

4 Jun 2020 B

The EU Court of Justice Advocate General Kokott proposes to uphold the fine of almost €94 million imposed on a pharmaceutical group in the context of agreements intended to delay the marketing of generic versions of its antidepressant medicinal product citalopram (Lundbeck)

European Court of Justice • June 2020

Advocate General Kokott proposes that the Court of Justice should uphold the fine of almost €94 million imposed on the Lundbeck pharmaceutical group in the context of agreements intended to delay the marketing of generic versions of its antidepressant medicinal product citalopram* The Advocate (...)

4 Jun 2020 B

The UK Competition Authority secures disqualification of pharmaceutical company director for 5 years for breaching competition law (Amit Patel / Auden McKenzie / Amilco)

UK Competition Authority • June 2020

Pharma company director disqualified for competition law breaches* The CMA has secured the disqualification of pharmaceutical company director Amit Patel after he admitted his role in arrangements that broke competition law. Amit Patel has signed undertakings that ban him from holding a (...)

4 Jun 2020 R

Object restriction: Advocate General Kokott calls on the Court of Justice of the European Union to uphold the judgment of the General Court of the European Union imposing a fine of € 94 million on a pharmaceutical company for having concluded a pay for delay agreement with four generic companies (Lundbeck)

Alain Ronzano • N° 3-2020

On 4 June 2020, Advocate General Juliane Kokott delivered her Opinion in the case of Pay for Delay C-591/16 (Lundbeck v. European Commission).. As might be expected, these conclusions follow on from thejudgment of 30 January 2020 in Case C-307/18 (Generics (UK) and others). in which the Court (...)

4 Jun 2020 B

The UK Competition Authority secures binding competition disqualification undertakings by a director involved in two separate anticompetitive arrangements relating to the supply of pharmaceuticals (Amit Patel / Auden McKenzie / Amilco)

Peter Willis, Patricia Wing • June 2020

On 4 June 2020, the Competition Markets Authority (“CMA”) announced that it had secured binding competition disqualification undertakings by Mr Amit Patel, not to act as a director of any UK company for five years from 13 July 2020, in consequence of his involvement in two separate (...)

31 Jan 2020 eB

2020 Competition Case Law Digest - A Synthesis of EU, US and National Leading Cases Antitrust in the US Pharmaceutical Sector

Michael A. Carrier

583 Antitrust in the Pharmaceutical Sector: An Overview of US Case Law m iChAel A. C Arrier rutgers University mcarrier@camden.rutgers.edu i. introduction the issues presented by pharmaceutical antitrust law are vital to national economies and patients' lives. they implicate patent law, (...)

31 Jan 2020 eB

2020 Competition Case Law Digest - A Synthesis of EU, US and National Leading Cases Dominance in the Pharmaceutical Sector

Marion Provost, Mélanie Thill-Tayara

539 Dominance in the Pharmaceutical Sector: An Overview of EU and National Case Law m élAnie t hill -t A yArA, m Arion P roVost * Dechert (Paris) melanie.thill-tayara@dechert.com marion.provost@dechert.com I. Introduction The pharmaceutical sector stands out as being regularly under the scrutiny (...)

31 Jan 2020 eB

2020 Competition Case Law Digest - A Synthesis of EU, US and National Leading Cases Healthcare & Pharma
Competition in the Pharmaceutical Sector

Margaret Kyle

Healthcare & Pharma 525 Competition in the Pharmaceutical Sector: An Overview of EU and National Case Law m Arg Aret k yle mines Paristech (Paris) margaret.kyle@mines-paristech.fr i. introduction the pharmaceutical sector regularly attracts the attention of competition authorities, who note (...)

30 Jan 2020 R

Pay for delay: The Court of Justice of the European Union sets out the conditions under which an pay for delay agreement constitutes a restriction of competition by object or effect and how it can be analyzed as an abuse of a dominant position (Generics - UK)

Alain Ronzano • N° 2-2020

Just eight days after General Counsel Juliane Kokott presented her findings... in Case C-307/18 (Generics (UK) and Others), the Court of Justice of the European Union has therefore delivered its judgment in record time on 30 January 2020 in the same case.. Under the terms of this judgment - (...)

30 Jan 2020 B

The UK Competition Authority welcomes the EU Court of Justice ruling in a pay-for-delay case (Paroxetine Case)

UK Competition Authority • January 2020

CMA welcomes EU Court ruling in pay-for-delay drug case* The CMA welcomes a ruling from the EU Court of Justice in relation to its case that drug companies supplying an antidepressant called paroxetine broke the law. The ruling, released today, follows appeals from GlaxoSmithKline and other (...)

30 Jan 2020 B

The EU Court of Justice clarifies the criteria for the "pay-for-delay" agreements in the pharmaceutical sector (Generics - UK)

Kyriakos Fountoukakos, Dafni Katrana, Ruth Allen • January 2020

On 30 January 2020 the European Court of Justice (“ECJ”) clarified for the first time the criteria governing whether so-called “pay-for-delay” agreements entered into between originator and generic pharmaceutical companies fall foul of EU competition law rules. Such agreements are a form of patent (...)

30 Jan 2020 B

The EU Court of Justice rules that pay-for-delay patent settlements may restrict competition ‘by object’ (Generics - UK)

Peter L’Ecluse • January 2020

On 30 January 2020, the Court of Justice of the European Union (the “ECJ”) handed down its judgment in Case C-307/18, Generics (UK) and Others. This case marks the first time the ECJ has ruled on patent settlement agree- ments between originator pharmaceutical companies and generic producers. (...)

30 Jan 2020 B

The EU Court of Justice clarifies for the first time when patent settlement agreements that restrict a generic pharmaceutical company’s ability to enter the market infringe the EU antitrust rules (Generics - UK)

Catriona Hatton, Paul Lugard, Daniel Vasbeck • January 2020

In a major judgment handed down on 30 January 2020 in Generics (UK) and Others, the EU Court of Justice (the Court) – the EU’s highest court – clarified for the first time the analytical framework for assessing when patent settlement agreements that restrict a generic pharmaceutical company’s (...)

30 Jan 2020 R

Pay-for-delay: The Court of Justice of the European Union condemns an originator laboratory for an abuse of its dominant position due to the cumulative effect of reverse-payment settlements concluded with generic drug manufacturers (Generics - UK)

Anne Wachsmann, Nicolas Zacharie • N° 2-2020 • pp. 83-85

In a judgment of 30 January 2020 handed down on a reference for a preliminary ruling by the Competition Appeal Tribunal of the United Kingdom, the Court of Justice of the European [Union Court of Justice] provides interesting clarifications with regard to both the concept of anti-competitive (...)

30 Jan 2020 B

The EU Court of Justice clarifies the conditions under which ‘pay-for-delay’ agreements preventing generic versions of a patented medicine from entering the market or delaying such entry may constitute a restriction of competition ‘by object’ or ‘by effect” as well as an abuse of dominant position (Generics)

Amélie Lamarcq, Sandrine Mathieu • January 2020

On 30 January 2020, the Court of Justice of the EU (‘CJEU’) ruled on the applicability of competition law to settlement agreements between a holder of a pharmaceutical patent and manufacturers of generic medicines. In a judgment issued only a week after Advocate General Kokott delivered her (...)

30 Jan 2020 R

Restriction by object: The Court of Justice of the European Union clarifies the conditions for a pay-for-delay agreement to be qualified as a restriction of competition by object following a preliminary ruling request of the Competition Appeal Tribunal (Generics - UK, GlaxoSmithKline, Xellia Pharmaceuticals...)

Michel Debroux • N° 2-2020 • pp. 72-74

The much-awaited judgment of the Fourth Chamber of the Court of Justice of 30 January in response to the questions referred by the Competition Appeal Tribunal [CAT] is already seen, together with thejudgment of 2 April 2020 in Case C-228/18 (Budapest Bank), as bringing, in a very timely (...)

30 Jan 2020 B

The EU Court of Justice clarifies the conditions for a pay-for-delay agreement to be qualified as a restriction of competition by object (Generics - UK / GlaxoSmithKline / Actavis / Xellia Pharmaceuticals / Merck / Alpharma)

Donald Slater • January 2020

On 30 January 2020 (case C-307/18), the European Court of Justice ("ECJ") issued a preliminary ruling that sheds more light on the circumstances in which an agreement settling a patent dispute between a pharmaceutical patent holder and a company intending to launch a competing generic product (...)

30 Jan 2020 B

The EU Court of Justice clarifies when patent settlement agreements restricting a generic pharmaceutical company’s ability to enter the market, infringe EU antitrust rules (Generics - UK)

Anne Federle, Pauline Van Sande • January 2020

Article summary: Settlement Agreements Can Be Anti-Competitive Only If The Involved Companies Are (At Least) Potential Competitors. A Careful Examination Must Determine Whether A Generic Manufacturer Would Have Entered Into The Market Without A "Pay Per Delay" Agreement. The Classification Of (...)

30 Jan 2020 B

The EU Court of Justice provides guidance on patent settlements between manufacturers of originator and generic medicines (Generics - UK)

Lesley Hannah, Ann-Christin Richter • January 2020

On 30 January 2020, the European Court of Justice released its judgment relating to a patent dispute between the pharmaceutical patent-holder, GlaxoSmithKline (GSK), and a generic drug maker concluding that originators and generics are in fact “potential competitors” if the generic drugmaker has (...)

22 Jan 2020 R

Pay for delay: Advocate General Kokott invites the Court to rule that an Pay for Delay agreement may constitute a restriction of competition by object or effect and that its conclusion may be analysed as an abuse of a dominant position (Generics - UK)

Alain Ronzano • N° 2-2020

Taking the view that uncertainty as to the validity of a patent on a medicinal product or as to the infringing nature of its generic does not preclude the patent holder and the generic manufacturer from being regarded as potential competitors, Advocate General Kokott invites the Court to rule (...)

16 Dec 2019 R

USA: Eighty-two academics file an amicus brief with the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in support of the Federal Trade Commission’s position in a pay-for-delay case (Impax Laboratories)

Walid Chaiehloudj • N° 1-2020 • p. 202

The Impax case that we have recently discussed in these columns has bounced back in the courts (Concurrences No. 2-2019, Art. No. 90540, p. 208). The pharmaceutical company seeks to challenge the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC) assessment that the agreements entered into by the company were (...)

21 Nov 2019 B

Dominance in the pharmaceutical sector: An overview of EU and national case law

Marion Provost, Mélanie Thill-Tayara • Pharma & Dominance

The pharmaceutical sector stands out as being regularly under the scrutiny of competition authorities throughout Europe and has continued to be a key enforcement priority over the past 18 months, with notable developments in pay-for-delay and excessive pricing cases, as well as on market (...)

3 Oct 2019 B

The UK Competition Authority issues a statement of objections to three pharmaceutical companies over pay-for-delay agreements (Aspen / Amilco / Tiofarma)

Piet-Hein Eijssen, Peter Willis • October 2019

On 3 October 2019 the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) issued a Statement of Objections (the “SO”) to three pharmaceutical companies over pay-for-delay agreements in the market for Addison’s disease treatment. In its SO the CMA sets out its provisional view that, in 2016, pharmaceutical (...)

19 Sep 2019 B

Intellectual property and competition law: An overview of EU and national case law

Rupprecht Podszun • Intellectual property

About ten years ago, “IP and competition law” was the hottest ticket in antitrust town. The relevant cases decided in those days had it all: Well-known companies, very sophisticated legal issues, and authorities that were willing to intervene vigorously in the field of intellectual property (...)

11 Jul 2019 R

Sanction: The Paris Court of Appeal reduces the penalty imposed on a pharmaceutical company by €4 million, but essentially confirms the French Competition Authority’s analysis on the delay in generic entry (Janssen-Cilag, Johnson & Johnson)

Alain Ronzano • N° 4-2019

On 11 July 2019, the Paris Court of Appeal handed down a ruling in the case of the delay in the entry of generics of Durogesic. It will be recalled that by a decision rendered on December 20, 2017In its decision of 25 March 2008, the Competition Authority sanctioned the laboratory (...)

28 Mar 2019 B

The U.S. FTC reverses Administrative Law Judge decision, finding Section 5 violation for reverse-payment settlement (Impax)

Michael A. Carrier • March 2019

In FTC v. Actavis, the Supreme Court ruled that settlements by which brand drug companies pay generics to delay entering the market could violate antitrust law. In In the Matter of Impax Laboratories, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC or Commission) offered its first elaboration upon this (...)

28 Mar 2019 R

United States: The Federal Trade Commission rules that two pharmaceutical laboratories concluded an unlawful pay-for-delay agreement (Impax Laboratories)

Walid Chaiehloudj • N° 2-2019 • pp. 208

No loosening of deferral of entry agreements appears to be the direction given to FTC officers. In its Opinion written by Noah Joshua Phillips, the U.S. Competition Authority unanimously ruled on March 28 that generic Impax had entered into an illegal pay-for-delay agreement with Endo (for a (...)

28 Mar 2019 B

The US FTC concludes that a pharma company entered into an illegal pay-for-delay agreement (Impax)

Katie R. Beran, Melinda R. Coolidge • March 2019

On March 28, 2019, the Federal Trade Commission (the “Commission”) issued a landmark opinion in the agency’s case against Impax Laboratories Inc. regarding its patent settlement with Endo Pharmaceuticals Inc., marking the first time that the Commission has weighed in on the proper application of (...)

18 Mar 2019 B

The US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois receives a class action complaint against a pay-for-delay agreement (Abbvie)

James J. Kovacs • March 2019

Plaintiffs Targeting Biologic-Biosimilars Settlements with Pay-for-Delay Antitrust Claims* Antitrust principles that can invalidate certain pay-for-delay settlements will be expanding into the new frontier of biologic and biosimilar drugs if plaintiffs in several new suits are successful. (...)

25 Feb 2019 B

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit Court dismisses a complaint only based on past conduct against a pharmaceutical company (Shire Viropharma)

Thomas J. Miller, George Gordon • February 2019

On February 25, 2019, the Third Circuit held that the Federal Trade Commission cannot bring litigation in federal court based on past conduct, absent factual allegations demonstrating that a defendant “is violating or is about to violate” the laws enforced by the FTC. In doing so, the court (...)

28 Jan 2019 B

The EU Commission issues a Report on Competition enforcement in the pharmaceutical sector covering the years 2009-2017

European Commission • January 2019

Report on Competition enforcement in the pharmaceutical sector (2009-2017)* On 28 January 2019, the European Commission adopted the Report ‘European competition authorities working together for affordable and innovative medicines’ on competition enforcement in the pharmaceutical sector. The (...)

28 Jan 2019 B

The EU Commission publishes a report on competition enforcement in the pharmaceutical sector between 2009 and 2017

Martin Favart • January 2019

On 28 January 2019, the European Commission adopted a report on competition enforcement in the pharmaceutical sector between 2009 and 2017. The report provides an overview on the enforcement of antitrust and merger rules in the pharmaceutical sector and describes how competition law enforcement (...)

13 Dec 2018 B

Competition in the pharmaceutical sector: An overview of EU and national case law

Margaret Kyle • Competition in the Pharmaceutical sector

The pharmaceutical sector regularly attracts the attention of competition authorities, who note persistently high profits, waves of merger activity, and declining research productivity in the presence of concerns about affordable access to treatments. The reliance on intellectual property (...)

12 Dec 2018 R

“Pay-for-delay”: The General Court of the European Union essentially upholds eight decisions of the European Commission totalling almost 900 pages sanctioning “pay-for-delay” settlements entered into between a princeps pharmaceutical company and generic manufacturers, but reduces the fine in one case and partially annuls two decisions (Biogaran ; Teva UK ; Lupin ; Mylan ; Krka. ; Servier ; Niche ; Unichem)

Michel Debroux • N° 1-2019 • pp. 73-76

Two years after his "Lundbeck" (Trib. EU 8 Sept. 2016, T-472/13, see "The Lundbeck case and the concept of potential competition", ConcurrencesNo. 2-2017, pp. 24-50.), the Court of First Instance once again addressed, in eight judgments totalling almost 900 pages, the complex question of the (...)

12 Dec 2018 B

The EU General Court annuls a decision of the Commission for wrongly qualifying agreements as "pay for delay" and improperly qualifying an abuse of dominance, thus reducing the fine imposed on a pharmaceutical company (Servier)

Marion Provost, Mélanie Thill-Tayara, Simon Hetsch, Sophie Pele • December 2018

The General Court annuls in part the European Commission’s decision finding the existence of restrictive agreements and an abuse of a dominant position on the market for perindopril, a medicine used to treat hypertension and heart failure* On 12 December 2018, the General Court (“Court”) (...)

12 Dec 2018 B

The EU General Court offers a mixed review of patent settlement agreements in the pharmaceutical sector (Servier)

Peter L’Ecluse • December 2018

On 12 December 2018, the General Court (“GC”) once again passed judgment on a number of patent settlement agreements in the pharmaceutical sector. It had already reviewed such agreements in September 2016 when it upheld the decision of the European Commission (the “Commission”) in the Lundbeck (...)

12 Dec 2018 R

Patent: The E.U General Court confirms that certain patent settlement agreements may be restrictive of competition by object (Groupe Servier)

Jean-Michel Vertut • N° 1-2019

The EU Court of First Instance issued a judgment illustrating a practice of market access barriers in the pharmaceutical sector (see e.g., internally, from a procedural point of view, Crim. 26 Oct. 2016, no. 15-83477: Letter distr. December 2016, nos. obs.). In a lengthy judgment, the Court of (...)

12 Dec 2018 B

The EU General Court holds that patent settlements may be deemed “pay-for-delay” agreements only if there are reverse payments, and the originator may not be held dominant if the market is not assessed rigorously (Servier)

Enzo Marasà • December 2018

The Servier judgments: patent settlements may be deemed “pay-for-delay” agreements, and thus by-object infringements of Article 101 TFEU only if Commission substantiates strong indication of “reverse payment” or “abnormal inducement” from the originator to the generic; further, the originator cannot (...)

12 Dec 2018 B

The EU General Court rules that “pay-for-delay” patent settlements can be illegal agreements but annuls abuse of dominance finding (Servier)

James Aitken, Christopher Stothers, Gian Luca Zampa • December 2018

The General Court has given eight judgments on a Commission fining decision concerning patent settlements entered into by Servier and five competitor producers of generic drugs, reducing the fines from a total of € 428 million to € 315 million. The Court broadly upheld the fines based on Article (...)

1 Nov 2018 R

Patent Settlements in the Pharmaceutical Industry under US Antitrust and EU Competition Law, Amalia ATHANASIADOU

Stéphane Rodrigues • N° 4-2018 • p. 247

This section selects books on themes related to competition laws and economics. This compilation does not attempt to be exhaustive but rather a survey of themes important in the area. The survey usually covers publication over the last three months after publication of the latest issue of (...)

18 Oct 2018 B

Antitrust in the pharmaceutical sector: An overview of US case law

Michael A. Carrier • US Pharmaceutical sector

The issues presented by pharmaceutical antitrust law are vital to national economies and patients’ lives. They implicate patent law, antitrust law, and various regulations. They occur in unique markets in which the entity prescribing the drug is not the one paying for it. And they rely on (...)

10 Oct 2018 B

The U.S. Congress implements a new law requiring drug manufacturers to disclose biologic patent settlement agreements to antitrust Authorities (Patient Right to Know Drug Prices Act)

Jonathan Berman, Rosanna McCalips, Julia McEvoy, Larissa Bergin • October 2018

New Law Requires Disclosure of Biologic Patent Settlement Agreements to Antitrust Authorities* Last week, the Patient Right to Know Drug Prices Act ("Act") became law. The Act requires pharmaceutical companies to disclose to antitrust agencies agreements between biologic and biosimilar (...)

1 Sep 2018 R

Les accords de report d’entrée. Contribution à l’étude de la relation du droit de la concurrence et du droit des brevets, Walid CHAIEHLOUDJ

Perrine Perez • N° 3-2018 • p. 216

This section selects books on themes related to competition laws and economics. This compilation does not attempt to be exhaustive but rather a survey of themes important in the area. The survey usually covers publication over the last three months after publication of the latest issue of (...)

1 May 2018 R

Susan JONES (Novartis): Navigating competition law enforcement around the world - an in-house perspective

Bernd Meyring, Susan Jones • N° 2-2018

Having worked in a competition law authority, in private practice and now as an in-house lawyer, I view the latter as the most challenging and interesting. As an in-house lawyer, I feel responsible for safeguarding the long-term success and reputation of the company. So, it is important to (...)

total	176
total_found	176
time	0.136

Your search returned 176 results Pay-for-Delay

Debug

Métas associées