ALERTS: UNILATERAL PRACTICES - EUROPEAN UNION - ABUSE OF DOMINANT POSITION - ANTICOMPETITIVE EFFECT - PATENTS - INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY - PAY FOR DELAY - PHARMACEUTICAL SECTOR

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)

*This article is an automatic translation of the original article in French, provided here for your convenience. Read the original article. 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 that a pay-for-delay agreement constitutes a restriction of competition by object or effect and that its conclusion can be analysed as an abuse of a dominant position. On 22 January 2020, Advocate General Juliane Kokott delivered her Opinion in Case C-307/18 (Generics (UK) and Others).. This follows a reference for a preliminary ruling by the UK Competition

Access to this article is restricted to subscribers

Already Subscribed? Sign-in

Access to this article is restricted to subscribers.

Read one article for free

Sign-up to read this article for free and discover our services.

 

PDF Version

Author

  • L’actu-concurrence (Paris)

Quotation

Alain Ronzano, 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), 22 January 2020, Concurrences N° 2-2020, Art. N° 93030, www.concurrences.com

Visites 259

All reviews