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

Cookies Settings

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

On a recent trip to the French capital, we learned that the UPC is squeezing domestic litigation while firms are chasing senior talent, experimenting with AI and considering new ways of organising their practices
Daniel Law says a string of lateral hires and broader expansion plans will strengthen its position to capitalise on Brazil’s burgeoning IP and patent litigation market
Jason Raeburn’s arrival will expand the firm’s London footprint in AI, copyright and tech disputes
The firm is shaping its AI strategy around partnerships with Harvey and Legora alongside internally developed tools from its legal technology company, Eltemate
A dispute Down Under shows why trademark lawyers cannot afford to wait on the sidelines when a rival brand gathers momentum
The Third Circuit’s decision in Thomson Reuters v ROSS marks the first appellate-level decision addressing AI and fair use, prompting copyright counsel to consider arguments around potential licensing markets
Injunctions for HandsFree Labs and Align Technology come as the Court of Appeal warns that busy teams must have the staffing and resources to meet UPC deadlines
The chief technology officer remit, which has been created as the firm is building its litigation team, will include expanding the use of AI in patent and legal work and automating manual processes
Former Hoyng Rokh Moneiger partner Laura Alonso, who brought her team to ECIJA in March, discusses plans to expand further and why ECIJA’s ‘IP DNA’ is helping broaden her work
Amita Haylock discusses building an integrated Asia practice as clients increasingly demand that firms combine IP, technology and data expertise
Gift this article