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

A $110 million US verdict against Apple and an appellate order staying a $39 million trademark infringement finding against Amazon were also among the top talking points
Attorneys are watching how AI affects trademark registrations and whether a SCOTUS ruling from last year will have broader free speech implications
Patent lawyers explain why they will be keeping an eye on the implications of a pharma case and on changes at the USPTO in the second half of 2025
The insensitive reaction to a UK politician crying on TV proves we have a long way to go before we can say we are tackling workplace wellbeing
Adrian Percer says he was impressed by the firm’s work on billion-dollar cases as well as its culture
In our latest interview with women IP leaders, Catherine Bonner at Murgitroyd discusses technology, training, and teaching
Developments included an update in the VAR dispute between Ballinno and UEFA, the latest CMS updates, and a swathe of market moves
The LMG Life Sciences Americas Awards is thrilled to present the 2025 shortlist
A new order has brought the total security awarded to a Canadian tech company to $45 million, the highest-ever by an Indian court in an IP case
Andrew Blattman reflects on how IP practices have changed and shares his hopes for increased AI use and better performance on the stock market
Gift this article