AstraZeneca loses appeal at Court of Justice

Managing IP is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 1-2 Paris Gardens, London, SE1 8ND

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2025

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

AstraZeneca loses appeal at Court of Justice

Pharma companies in Europe should reconsider their antitrust risk following a ruling by the Court of Justice this morning

In a relatively straightforward decision, the Court dismissed AstraZeneca's appeal of a General Court ruling that had in turn largely upheld a finding by the European Commission in 2005.

That finding imposed a fine of €60 million on AstraZeneca (later reduced to €52.5 million by the General Court) for infringing competition rules. The Commission said the company's patent and SPC strategies, designed to limit competition from generic rivals, amounted to an abuse of its dominant position.

The Court of Justice also rejected a cross-appeal by the Commission in relation to the reduced level of fine imposed on AstraZeneca.

For the full background on the case, see Managing IP's briefing.

"The Commission will be delighted with the endorsement to its approach; innovative pharma less so. The pharmaceutical industry is now subject to a set of onerous but not fully clear obligations," commented Marie Manley, head of Bristows' Pharmaceutical Regulatory team.

John Cassels at Field Fisher Waterhouse identified three key lessons from the case:

  • There is a trend towards narrower market definition which means that companies may be wrong when they consider themselves too small to be dominant;

  • First movers with patents face a risk of dominance, even in sectors characterised by innovation; and

  • It appears to impose active obligations on dominant companies, for example to disclose their interpretation of legal provisions upon which they rely when applying for IP rights or undertaking a course of action

Pat Treacy, head of Bristows' competition team, argued that the impact goes beyond the pharma sector. "All companies which may be dominant now have an obligation to conduct themselves transparently when dealing with the public authorities. AstraZeneca has been penalised for making arguments that favoured its position when the issue was legally unclear," she said.

For background on the case, see Managing IP's guide to the case.

The full text of the decision can be seen here.

more from across site and SHARED ros bottom lb

More from across our site

Alston & Bird acted for InterDigital, while Samsung was represented by Fish & Richardson, during the arbitration process
Powell Gilbert lawyers reveal how they navigated parallel EPO proceedings and collaborated with European peers to come out on top in the Nordic-Baltic Division’s first judgment
The firms posted increases in revenue and profit per equity partner, with both giving a nod to their IP expertise
EasyGroup, the owner of the easyJet airline, said in a press release that UK-based first-instance judges are “less experienced”, bringing a long-running debate back to the fore
A cross-practice team from Mayer Brown, which included members of the firm’s IP practice, advised on the deal
María Cecilia Romoleroux discusses the challenges she has faced in her career in IP and how she hopes to improve things for the next generation of women
Value-added services give in-house counsel the satisfaction that they are getting more value for money, while law firms get the opportunity to win more work
A team at Boies Schiller Flexner is advising shoe company Kizik and parent company HandsFree Labs in the dispute
Nokia’s latest enforcement actions against Geely and Transsion joining Via LA’s AAC pool were also among the top talking points
Benjamin Kelly, the firm’s fifth IP partner hire in a little over one year, has experience in patent and trade secret disputes involving complex technologies
Gift this article