*This article is an automatic translation of the original article, provided here for your convenience. Read the original article. The fate of the six appeals that gave rise to the Court's 25 March judgments in thispay-for-delaycase had most likely already been sealed, in reality, on 30 January 2020 when the Court handed down its Generics (UK) judgment. In this judgment, commented in the issue 2-2020 of this journal in the column Cartels (p. 74, obs. M.D.) and in the column Unilateral practices (p. 83, obs. A. W. & N. Z), the Court ruled in particular on the concepts of potential competition and restriction of competition by object, both of which are crucial in a case at the intersection of competition law and intellectual property law. Unsurprisingly, and in line with its
CASE COMMENTS: CARTELS - DELAYED ENTRY AGREEMENT - POTENTIAL COMPETITION - COUNTERFACTUAL - RESTRICTION OF COMPETITION BY OBJECT
Restriction by object: The Court of Justice of the European Union confirms, in line with its Generics (UK) judgment of 30 January 2020 and unsurprisingly - but not without leaving some questions open - the judgments of the General Court of the European Union which had upheld the sanctions imposed on "pay-for-delay" agreements (Lundbeck)
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.