Coty gets green light for online platform ban

The Higher Regional Court of Frankfurt ruled last Thursday that Coty Germany’s ban on distributors selling products over the Amazon.de platform is a justifiable restriction of online sales. The full judgment has not yet been released, but the court has published a statement (in German) summarising the decision. 

This ruling follows the decision of the Court of Justice of the European Union (‘CJEU’) at the end of last year in a preliminary reference arising from the dispute (see here). The CJEU ruled the restriction of sales through third party platforms such as Amazon is not a hardcore restriction of competition, and may be justified where it has the objective of preserving an ‘aura of luxury’ that is linked to the quality of the goods. However, the CJEU stated that it was for the national courts to decide whether such restrictions are justifiable and proportionate, on a case-by-case basis.

Following the CJEU’s reasoning, the Frankfurt court found that the selective distribution system implemented by perfume supplier Coty, including the ban on sales over third party platforms such as Amazon.de, was compatible with competition law because it was based on objective qualitative criteria applied uniformly and without discrimination, and because it did not go beyond what was necessary to preserve the luxury image of the goods. It also confirmed that the specific clause banning the advertising and selling of Coty products via Amazon.de was proportionate to the objective of preserving the quality of these luxury products. The Frankfurt court therefore concluded that Coty’s selective distribution did not infringe EU competition law. 

The findings of the Frankfurt court are not surprising given the strong steer given by the CJEU in the reference proceedings. However, we will be reading the full judgment closely when it’s available, to see if there is any indication that the German courts support the view of the German Competition Authority, the Bundeskartellamt, that the CJEU’s decision should be limited to genuinely prestigious products or whether it can be applied more widely...

MasterCard and Visa MIFfed as the Court of Appeal considers two-sided markets; SCOTUS itself is two-sided (Part 2 – the USA)

Following on from yesterday’s blog on the MasterCard / Visa decision, we’ve also taken a look at how the US is approaching antitrust issues in two-sided markets, with SCOTUS giving its first Opinion on these in the AmEx litigation (originally brought with the DoJ, but continued by only eleven states following the administration change). 

AmEx is a closed loop network, with AmEx holding relationships with Cardholders and Merchants.  In a 5-4 decision considering anti-steering provisions that prohibited merchants from avoiding fees by discouraging AmEx use at the point of sale, SCOTUS found no violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act (upholding the U.S. 2nd Cir. Court of Appeals).  SCOTUS was asked to determine whether the parties had met the burdens in a three step rule of reason analysis (plaintiff must prove anticompetitive effects; defendant must show a procompetitive justification; plaintiff must show that efficiencies could have been achieved through less restrictive means).  

The plaintiffs sought to argue that a market definition wasn’t necessary because they had offered evidence that showed adverse effects on competition.  The majority disagreed with this, and noted that the cases relied on by the plaintiffs for this proposition were horizontal restraint cases. Here, vertical arrangements were at issue, and given that they’re not always anti-competitive, the market definition was relevant.  

The majority held that the relevant market included both sides of the transaction, and it had to be shown that both sides of the transaction were harmed by the provision.  The Court stated that “a market should be treated as one sided when the impacts of indirect network effects and relative pricing in that market are minor”, and divided two-sided markets into two categories:

  1. Two-sided transaction platforms that facilitate a single, simultaneous transaction and are best understood as supplying that transaction as the product (such as those between AmEx Cardholders and Merchants); and

  2. Platforms where the two sides aren’t selling directly to each other (such as newspapers, where users are indifferent to the amount of advertising).

Further, with the first category, evaluating both sides would be necessary to assess competition; only other two-sided platforms can compete for transactions.  Non-transaction platforms often do compete with companies that do not operate on both sides.  Unfortunately for the plaintiffs, their evidence was insufficient as they had only focused on the increase to merchant fees.  This division will perhaps create some debate as to which category a platform falls into, and arguments around how strong indirect network effects are. 

The majority stated that in order to show that the provisions were anticompetitive, plaintiffs should have demonstrated that they increased the cost of credit card transactions above a competitive level, reduced the number of transactions, or otherwise stifled competition.  In fact, the majority found that the provisions were pro-competitive, as they helped maintain a competitor to MasterCard and Visa. 

The dissenting opinion, which included some persuasive points, wanted the US to follow other jurisdictions and take action against high fees charged by credit-card companies to Merchants, viewing the provisions as clearly anticompetitive.  It referred to findings by the District Court, and stated that a market definition was unnecessary because of direct evidence of anticompetitive effects (primarily that AmEx was able to keep increasing fees without losing any large Merchants), but the correct relevant market should have been only the one side – the services are complementary, not substitutes – and that the other side of the market should have come in at the second step of the rule of reason analysis.  This perhaps puts the dissenting justices more in line with the CoA’s approach.   

Dissenting, Justice Breyer further countered the view that the provisions were pro-competitive by stating that “if American Express’ merchant fees are so high that merchants successfully induce their customers to use other cards, American Express can remedy that problem by lowering those fees or by spending more on cardholder rewards so that cardholders decline such requests”.  

Back in the UK, the Merricks collective claim is attempting to show that harm was caused to consumers –not on the flip side of the market, but by Merchants passing on the cost of the MIFs to customers.  Although the CAT refused to allow the action, the appeal is due to be heard later this year.  Whilst there is quite a hurdle to jump in how to ensure consumers receive compensatory amounts rather than token sums of money, if the class is certified, the analysis of effects on consumers and the links between the different markets could make for interesting reading. 

(On a collective action side note…  After two years of build-up, it’s good to see that the first trucks collective claim has started rolling towards certification, and interestingly, is using a special purpose vehicle more typical of litigation in the Netherlands than the UK.)

MasterCard and Visa MIFfed as the Court of Appeal considers two-sided markets; SCOTUS itself is two-sided (Part 1 – the UK)

Whilst the Court of Appeal’s judgment in MasterCard / Visa, and the SCOTUS Opinion in AmEx may seem a little outside our usual area of focus, they are nevertheless decisions that relate to the operation of two-sided markets.  With multi-sided platforms in innovative technological markets, such as Google, Facebook and Uber, increasingly drawing antitrust attention, (see here, and here) there may be some helpful guidance to be drawn from long established industries such as banking and finance. 

This post comes in two parts, with today focusing on the MasterCard / Visa judgment, and tomorrow focusing on the AmEx litigation. 

The Court of Appeal judgment 

Both MasterCard and Visa operate four-party payment schemes:

  • Cardholders contract with an Issuer for a card to buy goods from Merchants;
  • Merchants contract with Acquirers to obtain payment from the Cardholders;
  • Issuers (mostly banks) contract with Acquirers (also mostly banks) to settle transactions.

The Issuers compete for the business of the Cardholders, and the Acquirers compete for the business of the Merchants; but each side is dependent on the other.  The MasterCard / Visa schemes operate as open loop networks, and those participating are subject to various rules – including a requirement to pay fees, including multi-lateral interchange fees (‘MIF’s), that are charged by the Issuer to the Acquirer, and ultimately paid by Merchants in each card transaction.  The MIFs could have been negotiated individually between the Issuer and the Acquirer, but in practice default MIFs set by MasterCard / Visa were used.   

This raised an interesting Article 101(1) question: do the schemes’ default MIFs amount to a restriction of competition by effect?  The European Commission thought so in issuing a 2007 decision against MasterCard in respect of cross-border card transactions, a decision which spawned a multitude of follow-on and standalone actions for damages against both MasterCard and (by analogy given the similarities between their systems) and VISA.  The CAT initially found for the Claimant in one damages action, but the High Court subsequently found for the Defendants in separate actions (MasterCard and Visa).  The Court of Appeal was tasked with addressing these inconsistent outcomes.

The systems themselves operate across three separate markets (an inter-systems market, an issuing market, and an acquiring market), and it was common ground that the relevant market was the acquiring market.  However, arguments raised by the parties (particularly the ‘death spiral’ argument, where MasterCard claimed that if it lowered its MIFs, Issuers would have switched to Visa and the MasterCard scheme would have collapsed) concerned effects on the inter-system market, and the issuing market.  The CoA held that the first question is whether the MIFs restricted competition in the acquiring market. The second question is then whether the MIFs were objectively justified, and at that point, it is legitimate to consider both sides of the two-sided market and the inter-system market. 

The CoA ultimately found that the fees were unlawful, and all three cases are to be remitted to the CAT for an assessment of damages, and a determination as to whether any objective justification applies.  Tomorrow, we’ll set out how the US Supreme Court came to the conclusion that provisions which affected Merchants’ transaction costs were not anti-competitive, with analysis turning on a definition of the market that has implications for all platforms.     

Depression delayed: CMA’s paroxetine pay-for-delay case heads to Luxembourg

On 8 March 2018, the Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) gave an initial judgment (see here) in the appeals brought by GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) and a number of generic manufacturers against the Competition and Markets Authority’s (CMA) 2016 Paroxetine decision (see here and here).   As explained further below, the CAT has (in a move which perhaps goes against the prevailing zeitgeist) not reached final conclusions on the appeals, but has rather referred a number of questions to the Court of Justice in Luxembourg.

Background

The infringements identified by the CMA in its Paroxetine decision arose out of three patent settlement agreements made in 2001 and 2002 between GSK and various generic manufacturers of paroxetine.  

Paroxetine is an anti-depressant (selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor “SSRI”), marketed by GSK under the brand name “Seroxat”, which during the infringement period was one of its highest selling products, accounting for £71.6 million (10% of revenue) in 2001.

The CMA’s investigation into paroxetine was the first UK case to grapple with the contentious area of patent settlement agreements which limit generic companies’ ability to bring their own product to market.  The investigation was formally launched by the OFT in 2011 on the basis of information obtained by the European Commission through its pharmaceutical sector inquiry (2009). 

Following a significant further period of investigation, the CMA in 2016 issued a decision fining GSK, Alpharma and Generics (UK) a total of £44.99 million for agreeing to delay the entry of generic paroxetine in breach of Chapter I and/or Article 101 TFEU.  GSK received the largest penalty, being fined £37,606,275 for its parallel infringement of the Chapter II prohibition:

  • The CMA found that between 2001 and 2004 GSK agreed to make payments and other value transfers of over £50 million to generic suppliers of paroxetine; this amounted to a restriction of competition by object and/or effect. 

  • The CMA also found that GSK’s conduct induced generic providers to delay their efforts to independently enter the UK paroxetine market, abusing its dominant position in breach of Chapter II of the Competition Act.

The CAT Judgment 

The essential element of the CAT’s March 2018 judgment is the reference of five issues to the CJEU for a preliminary ruling.  As things stand, the exact text of the questions has not been formulated (and will no doubt be the subject of fierce debate among the parties).  However, the issues referred will relate to the following areas: 

  1. Potential competition: whether the existence of an interim injunction against generic manufacturers was an insurmountable barrier for entering the market.

    The provisional view of the Tribunal was to find that it was not (since, for example, it could have been discharged). However, it decided to refer a question to the CJEU as the question was similar to one raised in Lundbeck’s appeal (see here). This reference raises issues not dissimilar to those at play in the recent Roche judgment of the CJEU, which considered whether potentially unlawful products could be viewed as potential competitors (see here).

  2. Restriction of competition by object: when the strength of a patent is uncertain, does a transfer of value from the originator to a generic of an amount substantially greater than avoided litigation costs, under a settlement agreement in which the generic company agrees not to enter the market with its generic product and not to challenge the originator’s patent, constitute a restriction by object?

    The CAT emphasised a number of points in connection with this question, including a notable recognition that (a) the uncertainty over patent strength means that a possible outcome of the litigation was that the generic challengers would be held to infringe a valid patent; and (b) an outcome of litigation which upheld the patent should not be viewed as a less competitive outcome than the situation where the patent was overturned.

    A second related question was also identified, which seeks to establish whether a settlement comprising a value transfer which also provides some benefits to consumers (in the form of limited supplies of authorised generic products) should also be viewed as restrictive by object. Again, the preliminary view of the Tribunal was that such limited competitive benefits are not sufficient to draw into question the overall categorisation of the agreement as a by object infringement. If that is correct, it is necessarily a conclusion which will have to be considered in detail for any specific patent settlement agreement, and suggests that a blanket ‘by object’ approach will not be warranted.

  3. Restrictions by effect: in order to show a restriction by effect is it necessary to establish that the counterfactual would have been more competitive? The Appellants argued that the CMA’s Decision did not sufficiently consider the potentially pro-competitive effects of GSK’s agreements with generic manufacturers, for example the savings to the NHS compared to the situation where no authorised generics were on the market.

    The CAT also started to grapple with an issue which has been underplayed in the European decisions to date, namely the relevance of the outcome of the underlying patent litigation. If one realistic outcome of that litigation was success for GSK, the approach proposed by the CMA would be to reduce the test for identifying effects to “the probability of a possibility”. On the other hand, the CAT did not seem to acknowledge the risk of creating a situation where an agreement is considered restrictive of competition by object yet does not possess the requisite degree of probability for an effects finding that is not made out. This is surely an issue that will have to be fully played out before this, and similar cases, are finally resolved. (Damages litigation in relation to patent settlement agreements is likely to bring this issue to the fore, even if the CJEU elects to side-step the question.)

  4. The correct approach to defining the relevant product market: is the relevant product market paroxetine or all SSRIs? While the Tribunal supported the CMA’s finding of dominance on the basis of a market limited to paroxetine, it criticised its reasoning. It considered the CMA to have taken an overly narrow approach to market definition, based on the impact of generic entry on the price of paroxetine - following the Commission’s ‘natural events’ approach used in its AstraZeneca Decision (2005) (see here). However, the CAT supported the view that from the time when there were potential generic entrants, the market was limited to paroxetine and its generics. It recognised that this preliminary view, which suggests a significant change in the relevant market over time (despite no suggestion that the view of prescribing professionals was subject to a similar change) was a departure from existing case law. In the authors’ view, this approach will lead to legal uncertainty and, more importantly, inappropriately substitutes an analysis based on perceived competitive constraints for an assessment based principally on objective demand factors. As the CAT itself notes, this approach would suggest successful drugs will almost always be found to constitute a distinct market at least from the time when generic entry becomes likely. As the Tribunal notes, this approach would amount to a material change to the “IP bargain” which “might adversely affect the economic purpose of patent legislation”.

    Nevertheless, in making the reference on this point, the CAT has flagged some significant issues which should weigh in the CJEU’s eventual analysis.

  5. Abuse: are potential benefits to the NHS relevant to the assessment of whether GSK had abused a dominant position by entering into the agreements?

    The final question on abuse is limited to an allusion back to the questions referred in relation to the object and effect of anti-competitive agreements. The central issue is again the question of whether the limited pro-competitive benefits derived from the presence of the generic companies as distributors of an authorised generic product are sufficient to undermine the main finding as anti-competitive effects.

Although the judgment is provisional in nature, there is much to absorb. We will report further when the agreed text of the questions to be referred has been published.

The chips are down! The Commission fines Qualcomm for abuse of dominance

The Commission has fined Qualcomm €997 million for abuse of dominance. The Commission found that Qualcomm had paid Apple to use only Qualcomm LTE baseband chips in its smartphones and tablet devices (see here) and that this was exclusionary and anti-competitive. 

Commissioner Vestager has said Qualcomm “denied consumers and other companies more choice and innovation – and this in a sector with a huge demand and potential for innovative technologies”, as “no rival could effectively challenge Qualcomm in this market, no matter how good their products were.

LTE baseband chips enable portable devices to connect to mobile networks. The Commission considers Qualcomm to have had a market share of over 90% between 2011 and 2016 (the period of the infringement). 
 
The Decision centres on an agreement between Qualcomm and Apple in force from 2011 to 2016 under which Qualcomm agreed to make significant payments to Apple. The payments were conditional on Apple not using chips supplied by Qualcomm’s rivals, such as Intel, in Apple’s mobile devices. Equally, Apple would be required to return a large part of Qualcomm’s previous payments if it decided to switch chip suppliers. The Commission also identifies Qualcomm’s IP rights as contributing to the significant barriers to entry in the chip market, reinforcing Qualcomm’s dominance.

The Qualcomm Decision is similar to the Commission’s 2009 Decision to fine Intel €1.06 billion for giving rebates to major customers in return for them exclusively stocking computers with Intel chips – a decision recently remitted by the CJEU to the General Court for further consideration of the ‘as efficient’ competitor analysis (see here and here). 

Applying the CJEU’s reasoning in Intel, Qualcomm sought to justify its rebate arrangements with Apple on the basis of the ‘as efficient competitor test’. However this attempt was rejected by the Commission as there were “serious problems” with Qualcomm’s evidence (see here).

Separately, Apple has also argued that Qualcomm’s dominance may be reinforced by its strategy for licensing its standard essential patents (SEPs) to competing chip manufacturers. Apple is bringing cases against Qualcomm around the world, alleging that it has engaged in “exclusionary tactics and excessive royalties”. In litigation launched in the English Patent Court in 2017, Apple alleges that Qualcomm is unwilling to license its SEPs to competing chip manufacturers, offering only patent non-assert agreements (see here) which could have a foreclosing effect on other chip manufacturers. (We understand that this case is subject to a jurisdiction challenge, due to be heard in the coming months.)

Qualcomm’s patent licensing arrangements are described (by Apple in its pleadings) in the diagram below:

The Qualcomm Decision reiterates the aggressive approach adopted by the Commission to policing rebates given by dominant companies and potential foreclosure effects. Following the Qualcomm Decision, Commissioner Vestager said “[t]he issue for us isn't the rebate itself. We obviously don't object to companies cutting prices. But these rebates can be the price of an exclusive relationship – the price of keeping rivals out of the market and losing the rebate can be the threat that makes that exclusivity stick” (see here). 
 
As litigation and antitrust clouds swirl around Qualcomm’s business model, in a separate case filed in the Northern District of California in 2017, the US Federal Trade Commission has similarly alleged that Qualcomm is using anti-competitive tactics to maintain its monopoly of baseband chips and has rejected requests for SEP licenses from Intel, Samsung and others (see here and here).

In parallel, competition authorities in China, South Korea, Japan and Taiwan have fined the company a total of $2.6 billion in relation to its SEP licensing policies and pricing (see here).

In summary, while the EU Commission fine is significant, and interesting for competition lawyers as it perhaps suggests that the significance of the Intel CJEU judgment may be more limited than anticipated, it is only part of the overall picture for Qualcomm (and for the sector as a whole). Indeed, even with today’s decision, the Commission has not brought its interest in Qualcomm to an end, as it is still investigating a separate predatory pricing complaint which was filed in 2015.  

The cumulative impact of these legal issues (as well as Qualcomm’s rejection of Broadcom’s takeover bid) may have contributed to a fall in Qualcomm’s share price – although Qualcomm had better news from DG Comp recently when its proposed acquisition of NXP was cleared by Brussels on 18 January (see here and here).

Online sales bans in the sports equipment sector: the CMA’s Ping decision

In August last year, the UK Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) announced that it had imposed a fine of £1.45 million on Ping Europe Limited (Ping) for breaching the EU and UK competition rules.  The CMA found that Ping had infringed the Chapter 1 prohibition of the Competition Act 1998 and Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) by entering into agreements with two UK retailers which banned the sale of its golf clubs online.  The CMA chose to apply Rule 10(2) of its procedural rules and addressed the decision only to Ping.  A non-confidential version of the decision was published in December 2017, revealing the UK competition authority’s detailed reasoning for the first time.  

Background. Ping is a manufacturer of golf clubs, golf accessories and clothing.  It operates a selective distribution system in the UK, supplying only retailers which meet certain qualitative criteria. Ping considered that ‘dynamic face-to-face custom fitting’1 was the best way to enhance golf-club choice and quality for consumers, and that such custom fitting could not take place over the internet.  As a result, Ping instigated an ‘internet policy’ which banned its authorised retailers from selling any of its golf clubs online.

The CMA’s competition assessment.  Relying on the CJEU’s judgment in Pierre Fabre, the CMA held Ping’s online sales ban restricted competition ‘by object’.  In the UK authority’s analysis, the ban reduced retailers’ ability to reach customers outside their local geographic areas and to win customers’ business by offering better prices online.  The CMA also relied on Advocate General Wahl’s Opinion in Coty (the CMA’s decision pre-dated the CJEU’s Coty judgment, which we commented on here).  AG Wahl had contrasted the contractual clause at issue in that case (which prevented authorised retailers from selling on third-party online platforms) with more serious restrictions, such as the outright internet sales ban that gave rise to the Pierre Fabre ruling.

Ping had argued that its online sales ban was objectively justified under the competition rules for three main reasons:

  1. The aim of the ban was to promote face-to-face custom fitting, which fosters inter-brand competition by enhancing product quality and consumer choice;
  2. The ban was necessary to protect Ping’s brand image.  Selling non-custom-fitted clubs would result in an inferior product being placed in consumers’ hands, which would damage Ping’s reputation;
  3. The ban enabled Ping to resolve a ‘free rider’ problem by ensuring that authorised retailers had appropriate incentives to invest in custom fitting. It would be commercially unsustainable for retailers to make investments in appropriate facilities if a potential customer could obtain a custom fitting in a bricks-and-mortar store and then buy the clubs online.

Noting that other high-end golf club manufacturers such as Callaway and Titleist did not restrict online sales of custom-fit clubs, the CMA dismissed Ping’s submissions on objective justification.  Whilst the CMA accepted that the promotion of custom fitting was a “genuine commercial aim”, it thought Ping could have achieved this through alternative, less restrictive means.  According to the CMA, the “main alternative” available to Ping was to permit authorised retailers to sell online if they could “demonstrate [their] ability to promote custom fitting in the online sales channel”.2

Ping’s appeal to the CAT.  Ping has appealed against the CMA’s decision.  In its press release responding to the decision, Ping stated: “Our Internet Policy is an important pro-competitive aspect of our long-standing commitment to custom fitting”.  It also argues in its Grounds of Appeal that the CMA was wrong to find that the online sales ban was disproportionate: the CMA’s proposed alternative measures would, in Ping’s view, be impractical and less effective at maximising rates of custom fitting.  The appeal is due to be heard by the UK Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) in May this year.

Comment.  The Ping decision is the latest in a line of recent cases in which suppliers have sought to restrict retailers’ ability to sell products over the internet.  As we noted here, the German Bundeskartellamt has taken a particularly dim view of online sales restrictions in a number of decisions concerning brand owners’ selective distribution systems.  The publication of the Ping decision also comes hot on the heels of the CJEU’s preliminary ruling in the Coty case, in which it was held that manufacturers of luxury goods can, in principle, prevent their authorised retailers from selling via third-party online platforms such as Amazon and eBay, provided that certain conditions are fulfilled (see here).

Also of note was the CMA’s decision to set out in an ‘Alternatives Paper’ its provisional considerations of ‘realistic alternatives’ to achieve the legitimate aims identified by Ping.  Whilst the CMA states that the evidential burden of establishing whether the online sales ban was justified was Ping’s and despite the CMA’s assertion that it was not required to do so, it is interesting that the CMA was willing to engage in its own alternatives assessment.

It remains to be seen what the CAT will make of Ping’s justifications for its online sales ban.  In the meantime, however, the CMA’s decision again highlights the competition law risks of imposing an outright ban on internet sales.  Like other national competition authorities, the CMA has frequently emphasised the importance of the online sales channel in intensifying intra-brand price competition.  As Senior Director for Antitrust Enforcement Ann Pope put it in the CMA’s press release of August 2017: “The internet is an increasingly important distribution channel and retailers’ ability to sell online, and reach as wide a customer base as possible, should not be unduly restricted.

______________________________________________

1 Dynamic face-to-face custom fitting generally involves: an initial interview; a static fitting in which the golfer’s basic measurements are taken; the fitter identifying potential club shafts for the golfer; a dynamic fitting, including a swing-test assessment of how the golfer is hitting the ball; purchasing advice; and grip fitting.

2 In particular, Ping could (according to the CMA) require its retailers to display on their websites a prominent notice recommending that customers take advantage of custom fitting; and it could determine that only retailers with an appropriate website providing a range of Ping custom fit club options would satisfy its selective distribution requirements.

Third-party platform bans justified for genuinely luxury brands

The Court of Justice of the European Union (‘CJEU’) has today ruled that third-party platform bans may be justified in the selective distribution of luxury goods. The CJEU’s decision in the Coty Germany reference proceedings broadly follows the opinion of Advocate General Wahl which was handed down earlier this year (see here, and further background here). 

The Court makes a number of rulings which will be of interest to brand owners:

  • Selective distribution may be justified for luxury goods to protect the ‘allure and prestige’. This clears up the uncertainty which arose following the Pierre Fabre judgment which seemed to suggest that the preservation of a luxury image could not justify a restriction of competition. The CJEU has confirmed that the judgment in that case should be confined to the particular facts at issue.
  • Third party platform bans may be justified in the selective distribution of luxury goods. The CJEU has ruled that, in the context of selective distribution, a supplier of luxury goods can, in principle, prohibit authorised distributors from using ‘in a discernible manner’ third-party platforms such as Amazon. Any third-party platform ban must have the objective of preserving the luxury image of the goods, be applied uniformly and not in a discriminatory fashion, and be proportionate to the objective pursued.

This ruling certainly gives some more leeway for brand owners of luxury goods, but should not be seen as an absolute green light for third-party platform bans. In particular, such restrictions must be justified by the goods in question (i.e. they must have a genuine ‘aura of luxury’) and must be a proportionate means of preserving the luxury image. This will be for national courts and authorities to interpret, and we can expect a fairly high threshold. The German Competition Authority, the Bundeskartellamt, has already said that it considers the CJEU’s decision to be limited to genuinely prestigious products. That said, the ruling does make clear that third-party platform bans do not amount to a hardcore restriction of competition, and thus it will be open to brand owners to seek to justify their use on a case-by-case basis.  

Deciding on terms of privacy policies – what are the risks of anti-competitive collusion?

Big data is the talk of the town in competition circles.  But it is perhaps a more mundane concern which could pose greater risks for a larger number of companies.  An article by a couple of regular CLIP Board contributors published earlier this year in Privacy Law International notes the increasing tendency to regard privacy as a parameter of competition, and explores the risks of collusive conduct being identified in relation to the terms of privacy policies. Is there a risk of a future information exchange case around the treatment of data privacy?  Could a concerted practice be found where companies benchmark their privacy policies against each other? Would this be as serious a concern as exchanges relating to future pricing intentions? 

Read on for our views on all of these questions here

Economical with the truth? When providing misleading information to authorities might be an object infringement

One of the more intriguing Opinions to be given by an Advocate General recently came out in late September (Case C-179/16, F. Hoffmann-La Roche and Others v Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato (AGCM), Opinion of Advocate General Saugmandsgaard Øe delivered on 21 September 2017). 

 It is full of interesting observations on market definition in the pharma sector; the distinction between object and effect; how to look at the question of competition between licensors and licensees under the Technology Transfer Regulation; and how to assess whether a restriction of competition exists. We will be writing about these (and more) a bit later, but thought that in the meantime those of you who are particularly interested in Life Sciences might want to take a look at our sister blog On The Pulse. A short article has been posted there which briefly summarises the Advocate General’s views on whether there is a duty on pharma companies under Article 101 not to agree to provide information which is objectively misleading to the regulatory authorities. In this instance the information found to be misleading related to the relative safety of two products, one of which was authorised to treat ophthalmic conditions and one of which was not, but which was being prescribed off-label – so quite unusual circumstances (although perhaps a situation that could be expected to arise more in future, as second, third and fourth medical uses become the norm).

You may remember that a similar legal issue has already been discussed under Article 102 in the AstraZeneca case (see here and here) where dominant companies were found to be subject to a duty to act transparently when dealing with the patent authorities. The extent of the duty was somewhat modified by the CJEU, but the obligation to provide all relevant information, and to clarify information which subsequently turns out to be incorrect, still exists. It will be interesting to see whether the CJEU follows the Advocate General in his approach to identifying a similar duty under Article 101, and whether the Advocate General’s expansive reading of when information may be misleading is approved by the Court.

Pat Treacy

Apple’s battle with Qualcomm spreads to the UK

On 19 May 2017 Apple issued a major claim against Qualcomm in the English Court. This is part of a widely reported global dispute between the two giants. The English action includes an Article 102 abuse of dominance claim as well as a FRAND licensing claim and was issued just a month after the English Court’s first FRAND valuation in Unwired Planet v Huawei (Bristows’ blog post here and here). The particulars of the claim are now available and make fascinating reading. 

On the FRAND licensing front, Apple seeks a declaration that Qualcomm has breached its obligations to ETSI, by failing to offer a FRAND licence for Standard Essential Patents (SEPs), seeking excessive and non-FRAND royalties. 

As far as competition law and Article 102 is concerned, Apple makes a number of arguments. 

It claims that Qualcomm is abusing its dominant position in the markets for LTE, CDMA and UMTS chipsets by refusing to license its SEPs to competing chipmakers. This means that if a chipset is purchased from a company other than Qualcomm, the purchaser must then obtain a licence from Qualcomm for use of Qualcomm’s standard-essential IP. Apple asserts that Qualcomm’s practices exclude chipset competitors from the market, as well as being in breach of its contractual FRAND obligations.

Apple also complains about various aspects of agreements between itself and Qualcomm. These expired in 2015, and in 2016 Apple began to purchase chipsets from Intel. This has doubtless affected the nature and timing of the litigation.

As mentioned above, Apple contends that Qualcomm’s royalties are excessively high. It then argues that to reduce the effective royalty rate it had to pay, it had no commercial alternative other than to conclude rebate agreements which involved granting Qualcomm exclusivity over Apple’s chipset supply. Apple maintains that one consequence of this arrangement has been to limit the emergence of other chipset manufacturers, who have been precluded from competing for Apple’s custom. Because of Apple’s importance as a purchaser of chipsets this is argued to have foreclosed a significant part of the potential demand. Qualcomm’s practice of forcing customers to take a licence and to agree to exclusionary terms is said to further reinforce the exclusionary effects. 

A particular feature of the rebate agreement which is criticised by Apple is that it was conditional on Apple agreeing not to pursue litigation or governmental complaints that the royalties were ‘non-FRAND’. 

Apple explains that Qualcomm’s royalties are charged in addition to the price of the chipset itself, and are based on the price of the end device being sold by the licensee, rather than on the price of the chipset in which it is argued that all the patented technology is practised. Apple takes the position that in order to be acceptable the royalty should be calculated by reference to the smallest saleable patent practising unit (SSPPU) – in this instance the chipset, rather than the phone. This is said to guard against situations where two phones that use the same Qualcomm technology could incur significantly different royalty obligations for use of the same SEPs based only on their different end sales prices. Those sales prices which differ because of completely different aspects of the phones, such as design or additional functionalities. This issue was not considered by Birss J in Unwired Planet v Huawei. The argument was raised in Vringo v ZTE, but was dropped before trial. 

Apple makes several arguments which are in tension with the recent Unwired Planet v Huawei Judgment. These include: that licensees can be acting in a FRAND manner even though they refuse to take a licence of an entire patent portfolio of declared SEPs, irrespective of validity or essentiality; that the FRAND royalty for an SEP should reflect the intrinsic value of the patent; and that the standard (of which that technology is a part) constitutes value that Qualcomm has not created and which it should not seek to capture through its FRAND licensing. 

Finally, in an attempt to demonstrate that Qualcomm’s royalty is not FRAND, Apple states that Qualcomm holds a quarter of the declared SEPs for the LTE standard and compares Qualcomm’s royalty with the (presumably lower) licence fee it pays other SEP holders, who combined hold one third of the relevant SEPs.

Ultimately, Apple claims that Qualcomm’s undertaking to ETSI is ineffective to constrain its dominance as an SEP owner. This may be a direct response to comments by Birss J in Unwired Planet v Huawei that an SEP holder may not always hold a dominant position, for example, because of the FRAND obligation and the risk that implementers may engage in patent hold-out. 

Conclusion

Developments in this case will be interesting when set against the recent judgment in Unwired Planet v Huawei, in which Birss J considered many of the issues raised by Apple. But Apple also makes arguments that go well beyond the issues considered in that case. For example, Apple’s arguments about exclusionary rebates may be affected by the Intel judgment, due to be handed down by the EU’s Court of Justice on 6 September 2017.  It also sits alongside parallel antitrust litigation in the US, including retaliatory actions by Qualcomm designed to exclude Apple’s handsets from import to the US. How this case, and the global dispute, evolves will be fascinating to follow – and not only for those with an interest in SEP and FRAND issues.