In this follow-up episode of our podcast series on patent settlement agreements and competition law, Sophie Lawrance and Helena Connors will cover the key takeaways from the Court of Justice's long-awaited judgment in Lundbeck.
While there are no big surprises in this judgment, it does clarify the Court's position on two key points of contention:
- whether generics manufacturers and originator companies are potential competitors; and
- on whether a "pay-for-delay" type agreement may amount to a restriction of competition "by object".
In the podcast, we'll discuss the Court's selection of facts to illustrate its reasoning on these points, in particular in relation to its consideration of "subjective" factors as evidence of whether parties viewed each other as potential competitors.
We'll also talk about an interesting and potentially important procedural point which arose out of the related Xellia and Alpharma judgment, which signals an apparent expansion of the duty to retain evidence. Should companies involved in sector inquiries preserve documents for an extended period of time as a result of this judgment? Will the Commission start to apply this enhanced duty in future investigations? Tune into this episode to hear our thoughts.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.