Page 10 - M&S_Issue1_2014

ISSUE 1 2014 MASCHIO & SOAMES IP LTD In Shanks v Unilever the employees failed. For Unilever, the benefit derived by the patents was some £24 million. However, this was dwarfed by the profits and turnover of Unilever as a whole and failed to be of outstanding benefit given the nature of the employers undertaking.
Competition authorities to keep a closer eye on the European pharmaceutical industry
Annabel Hampshire
In the last 10 years it would appear that potentially anti-competitive practices in the pharmaceutical industry are falling under increasing scrutiny and the European Commission has released several interesting decisions in this regard. This trend has gained further momentum since the Commission’s published enquiry into the pharmaceutical sector in July 2009 and with the relevant market often being defined nationally, the National Competition Authorities have also been keen to play an active role.
AstraZeneca fined €60 million for misusing patent system to delay market entry of competing generic drugs
In the decision by the Commission in 2005 (http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-05-737_en.htm) misleading representations by AstraZeneca in relation to marketing authorization dates to obtain or maintain SPCs and the deregistration of marketing authorizations were considered to be abuses; this decision was broadly upheld by CJEU. The overriding message of the court was that there is a general obligation by innovators in a dominant position to act transparently and merely showing compliance with regulatory law is not sufficient. This case was also interesting because it highlighted that when establishing dominance the relevant market in the pharmaceutical field is often narrow; typically concerning a specific product within a single member state.
10