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 2025

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

The renowned food brands were represented by a host of lawyers, including members of the firms’ IP teams
Partners at Bird & Bird and Taylor Wessing discuss how Saudi Arabia offers unique opportunities for firms dealing in IP and tech
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
Gift this article