Pharma industry fiercely criticises Lundbeck fine

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

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2026

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

Pharma industry fiercely criticises Lundbeck fine

The European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries Associations (EFPIA) has criticised the European Commission’s decision to fine Lundbeck and other companies a total of €146 million

On Wednesday, Commissioner Joaquin Almunia said the Commission was fining nine companies over pay-for-delay agreements relating to Lundbeck’s anti-depressant drug citalopram (branded as Celexa or Cipramil).

Lundbeck was accused of paying generic rivals not to sell generic versions of the drug. It was fined €93.8 million. Other companies fined included Merck KGaA, Generics UK (part of Mylan) and Ranbaxy.

Lundbeck immediately said it would appeal the fine. “There is no question about the validity of Lundbeck's process patents at issue. Patent settlement agreements are efficiency enhancing and legitimate when there are bona fide grounds for dispute,” it said.

The EFPIA said it and its members were “concerned” about the decision, and added that it would prolong patent litigation and undermine confidence in the patent system.

EFPIA Director General Richard Bergström said: “The EU patent system is still a mess. It is no surprise that companies settle to save legal fees and uncertainty”. He called for a full policy debate in the Commission.

The European Generic Medicines Association did not immediately comment on the decision.

In his statement, Almunia said the “overwhelming majority” of patent settlement agreements are entirely legitimate, but ominously added: “Paying competitors to stay out of the market at the expense of European citizens has nothing to do with the legitimate protection of intellectual property: it is an illegal practice and the Commission will fight against it. We have other investigations ongoing and more decisions in this field are likely before the end of my mandate.”

The US Supreme Court last week ruled in a pay-for-delay case involving Actavis, saying that reverse-payment deals are not automatically illegal, and must be judged case-by-case.

more from across site and SHARED ros bottom lb

More from across our site

Apple’s lawsuit against OpenAI, which features Tier 1-ranked disputes firms on both sides, reflects how trade secrets litigation is becoming a prominent competition feature
Drew & Napier’s leadership appointments show one way full-service firms can back up claims about the strategic importance of IP
Strike-out application will hear claims that the copyright aspect of an IP infringement claim brought by a gambling and sports betting group should be dropped
Amongst a sea of mergers, Lathrop GPM and HG Law have set out plans to combine, positioning themselves to compete with both IP boutiques and full-service firms
Patrícia Paias explains why she loves the science and business behind an idea and why potential rights owners must avoid the ‘file and forget’ philosophy
Lawyers eagerly await news of what IP specialist Sir Colin Birss will bring to one of the England and Wales judiciary’s most important roles
María Aurora García of Berken IP explains how intellectual property rights holders can use customs monitoring and online enforcement tools to identify parallel imports and support compliance with consumer protection rules
The Jakarta-based firm says personal networks and a distinctive strategy can help it guide foreign clients through what can be a tricky IP landscape
Munich litigation boutique formed by former Taylor Wessing partners continues expansion as it seeks to cement its position in the UPC market
Yvonne Tang and Siau Wen Lim, the second and third IP specialists to sit on the firm’s management committee, say IP is ‘uniquely positioned’ to support cross-practice work
Gift this article