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

Attorneys explain why there are early signs that the US Supreme Court could rule in favour of ISP Cox in a copyright dispute
A swathe of UPC-related hires suggests firms are taking the forum seriously, as questions over the transitional stage begin
A win for Nintendo in China and King & Spalding hiring a prominent patent litigator were also among the top talking points
Rebecca Newman at Addleshaw Goddard, who live-reported on the seminal dispute, unpicks the trials and tribulations of the case and considers its impact
Attorneys predict how Lululemon’s trade dress and design patent suit against Costco could play out
Lawyers at Linklaters analyse some of the key UPC trends so far, and look ahead to life beyond the transition period
David Rodrigues, who previously worked at an IP boutique, said he may become more involved in transactional work at his new firm
Indian smartphone maker Lava must pay $2.3 million as a security deposit for past sales, as its dispute with Dolby over audio coding SEPs plays out
Powell Gilbert’s opening in Düsseldorf, complete with a new partner hire, continues this summer’s trend of UPC-related lateral movement
IP leaders at Brandsmiths and Bird & Bird, who were on opposing sides at the UK Supreme Court in Iconix v Dream Pairs, unpick the landmark case and its ramifications
Gift this article