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

AI, cybersecurity and data practice group will provide clients with legal guidance around AI alongside a 'deep technical foundation’ in IP
Lawyers at Vondst and Biopatents say a ruling concerning the protected status of trade secrets could see the UPC flooded with requests to prevent access to confidential information
Sharad Vadehra of Kan & Krishme discusses why older IP firms still have an edge over up-and-coming boutiques and how the firm is using AI to provide quick and cost-effective service
Lawyers at Appleyard Lees share how they picked apart a plant breeder’s infringement claims concerning the ‘Tango’ mandarin
A further decision on long-arm status, and a new hire for Pentarc in Germany from Taylor Wessing were also among top developments
The US decision marks a rare grant of a request under the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act in a patent case
Stobbs has applied to strike out a contempt of court application filed against the firm and two of its lawyers
With trademark volumes surging, trademark teams need to think beyond traditional clearance searches, towards a continuous, intelligence-led workflow, says Meghan Medeiros of Corsearch
Brazilian in-house counsel say law firms’ technology investments have not translated into tangible benefits, meaning tech use is a minor factor when selecting advisers
A lack of comfort among some salaried partners shows why law firms must actively foster inclusion, not merely focus on diversity mandates
Gift this article