China, Fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory (FRAND), Intellectual property (IP), Standard essential patent (SEP)

(Hogan Lovells, China)/ /Leave a comment

On 4 January 2018, the Shenzhen Intermediate People’s Court (Court) rendered a landmark judgment in the Huawei v. Samsung standard essential patent (SEP) case that is expected to reshape dynamics between SEP licensors and licensees. On 21 March 2018, the Court released the non-confidential version of its judgment to the public. The Court ruled in…

Excessive pricing, Pharmaceuticals, United Kingdom

(White & Case)/ /Leave a comment

Summary On 7 June 2018, the UK Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) held that the UK Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) misapplied the relevant legal test when finding that Pfizer and Flynn Pharma (Flynn) unfairly priced their epilepsy drug. The CAT quashed the record £84.2 million and £5.2 million fines that the CMA imposed on Pfizer…

Cartels, Damages, Germany

(McDermott Will & Emery)/ /Leave a comment

In July 2005, Germany adopted a new law providing that the limitation period for damage claims is suspended during the investigation of a competition authority (“Suspension Provision”). Ever since, it was unclear whether the Suspension Provision applies only to infringements committed after the new provision came into force, or whether it has retroactive effect. In…

Commitments, European Union, Judicial review, Mergers

, (White & Case)/ /Leave a comment

On 16 May 2018, the General Court annulled the Commission’s decision rejecting Lufthansa’s request for a waiver of commitments it had given when it acquired Swiss in 2005. The Court faulted the Commission for not carrying out a careful examination of Lufthansa’s arguments that significant market changes justified a waiver of the commitments. The Commission…

Antitrust, Competition, Mergers

(WKB Wierciński, Kwieciński, Baehr, Poland)/ /Leave a comment

The Polish Competition Authority – the President of the Office for Competition and Consumer Protection (the ”PCA” or the “President of the OCCP”)–initiated the precedent antimonopoly proceedings against Gazprom and its international partners (Engie from Switzerland, as well as four other companies from the Netherlands: Uniper, OMV, Shell and Wintershall) related to an alleged violation…

European Union, Mergers

(Sidley Austin LLP)/ /Leave a comment

Consistent with recent trends in the United States, the European Union (EU) and many national governments in Europe are expressing renewed interest in greater scrutiny of acquisitions by foreign investors. Government ministers in Germany recently opposed a takeover in the robotics industry by a Chinese bidder, while government ministers in the Netherlands recently opposed a…

European Union, Gun jumping, Mergers

(Kirkland & Ellis, Belgium)/ /Leave a comment

Speed read On 31 May 2018, the EU’s Court of Justice (ECJ) gave judgment in the EY / KPMG case on whether the EU suspension obligation was violated when KPMG’s Danish unit terminated a material contract prior to receiving competition clearance for its merger with Ernst & Young (EY). The ECJ concluded that the measure…

China, Intellectual property (IP)

(Hogan Lovells, China)/ /Leave a comment

On 26 April 2018, the High People’s Court of Guangdong Province – home to many Chinese high-tech companies – issued the Working Guidelines on the Trial of Standard Essential Patent Disputes (Trial Implementation) (“Guidelines”). The Guidelines propose a holistic set of rules that consolidate some international practices on litigation issues related to the licensing of…

Price fixing, United States of America

, , (Jones Day)/ /Leave a comment

The U.S. Department of Justice indicted Bumble Bee Foods CEO Christopher Lischewski on price-fixing charges. Lischewski is the first CEO to be charged for his role in the alleged U.S. conspiracy to fix the price of packaged seafood. The Northern District of California grand jury indictment alleges that Lischewski participated in meetings and communications where…

Enforcement, India

(West Bengal National University of Juridical Sciences)/ /1 Comment

Indian sectoral regulators were vested with competition-related powers on account of an economic wisdom which favoured regulation, which has started to lose its relevance since the development of the competition law regime. Despite this, the Indian courts have resolved the issue of jurisdictional duplicity by excluding the competition authority, instead of the sectoral regulators. This…