Originally published as Covington E-Alert on December 10, 2012

On 6 December 2012, the EU Court of Justice dismissed AstraZeneca’s appeal of the General Court’s judgment in AstraZeneca v Commission. The Court of Justice affirmed the reasoning and holdings of the General Court and rejected all of AstraZeneca’s arguments, including its challenge to the General

Article originally published in Covington E-Alert, 10 December 2012

On 6 December 2012, the EU Court of Justice dismissed AstraZeneca’s appeal of the General Court’s judgment in AstraZeneca v Commission. The Court of Justice affirmed the reasoning and holdings of the General Court and rejected all of AstraZeneca’s arguments, including its challenge to the General

Originally published as Covington E-Alert on May 17, 2012

On 15 May 2012, the Advocate General of the EU Court of Justice issued his opinion on the appeal of the General Court’s judgment in AstraZeneca v. Commission.1 The Advocate General largely agreed with the reasoning and holdings of the General Court, and recommended that the

Article originally published in PLC Life Sciences Handbook 2012

M&A in the life sciences sector has remained robust, driven by factors such as:

  • „„ The need to replenish shrinking product pipelines.
  • „„ The need to maintain revenues as patents on top-selling
  • products expire.
  • „„ The strategic diversification of business lines.
  • „„ Expansion into emerging markets.

Originally published as Covington E-Alert on September 15, 2010

On 14 September 2010, the Court of Justice, the highest court in the European Union (“EU”), ruled that, in the context of EU competition law investigations, legal professional privilege (“LPP”) does not cover communications between in-house lawyers and other employees at a company, even where the

Originally published as Covington E-Alert on April 27, 2010

 On 20 April 2010, the European Commission published new rules governing so-called “vertical” agreements, such as distribution and supply agreements. The new rules are set out in the Vertical Restraints Block Exemption Regulation and the related Guidelines (see DG Competition’s website). They will become effective as

Originally published as Covington E-Alert on October 9, 2009

May a pharmaceutical company charge its wholesalers one price for products to be resold under the national healthcare reimbursement rules, and another, higher price for products to be resold in another EU member state? This was the question addressed by the European Court of Justice (ECJ)

Article originally published in Concurrences, N° 3-2009 (September 2009)

PROCEED WITH CAUTION ACROSS THE IP/COMPETITION INTERSECTION

DG Competition’s release of its long-awaited Final Report on its Pharmaceutical Sector Inquiry on 8 July 2009 was somewhat of a damp squib compared to the fireworks surrounding the publication of its Interim Report some eight months earlier. The

Article originally published in Global Competition Policy, February 2009 

The release of DG Competition’s Preliminary Report on its Pharmaceutical Sector Inquiry on November 28, 2008 was a Brussels media event, with press briefings, press releases, and an all-day public hearing that was covered by the Commission’s live television channel.1 Much of the discussion at