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.

A FRAND torpedo? An update on Vodafone v Intellectual Ventures

Patentees commonly litigate in Germany. The validity of a patent is considered separately from (generally after) any infringement claims. Infringement proceedings, including injunctive relief, are not typically stayed pending a validity challenge. The availability of a relatively quick infringement decision and potential injunction against a licensee who has not complied with the Huawei v ZTE framework seem to make it an attractive option. 

To avoid the risks of an injunction in Germany, implementers actually or potentially subject to infringement proceedings there might think about asking a court in another jurisdiction to consider any FRAND dispute. This could enable them to argue that issues relevant to an injunction, such as whether the implementer is a ‘willing licensee’, are already subject to the jurisdiction of another Court, making it more difficult for the patentee to get an injunction. 

This is exactly what happened in Vodafone v Intellectual Ventures. As this blog reported here, when faced with infringement proceedings in Germany, Vodafone launched a FRAND countersuit in Ireland (with an ex parte application for permission to serve out of the jurisdiction). Earlier this year (unreported judgment [2017] IEHC 160), Intellectual Ventures responded by making an application to the Irish Court on the basis of Articles 29 and 30 of the Recast Brussels Regulation. It claimed that the German Court had been ‘first seised’ and so the Irish Court was required (or alternatively that it should exercise its discretion) to decline jurisdiction, or at least stay the proceedings. 

Despite identifying a number of overlaps relating to FRAND between the Irish and German proceedings, the Irish Court did not agree that Article 29 applied. The Irish proceedings did not involve the same cause of action or even the same parties (because of the involvement of an Intellectual Ventures subsidiary in the Irish case). However, given the degree of overlap between the two sets of proceedings, the Court considered that some form of discretionary relief under Article 30 was appropriate. It decided not to decline jurisdiction under Article 30, but agreed to stay the proceedings pending the final judgment of the Düsseldorf Court, expected in September, at which point, the various issues discussed might become clearer, e.g. the extent to which the German Court would cover FRAND.

The success of Vodafone’s tactic is therefore yet to be fully determined. It will be very interesting to see to what extent the German Court takes into account the Irish proceedings when issuing its infringement decision, and in deciding whether to grant an injunction. In the meantime, it seems that implementers wishing to secure a favourable FRAND jurisdiction would ideally act pre-emptively, before patent infringement proceedings are issued.

A final point worth noting arises from Unwired Planet v Huawei (see this blog’s posts here and here).  In that case the English High Court decided that it could settle the terms of a FRAND licence (dealing with incidental FRAND disputes along the way) and that a FRAND licence between companies operating on a world-wide basis would be global in scope. 

There are many issues relevant to determining jurisdiction and the operation of the Recast Brussels Regulation. However, with the English Court clearly prepared to determine FRAND licence terms and having held that a FRAND licence will be global, there is perhaps more potential now to argue successfully that if FRAND proceedings have been issued in one jurisdiction, a Court in another should be cautious about granting an injunction or coming to any other conclusion that might conflict with any FRAND findings of the first Court. Indeed, if the implementer has made it clear that it will accept the terms settled by a Court, it may be difficult to argue convincingly that it should be regarded as “unwilling” or dilatory.

Unwired Planet v Huawei: a new FRAND injunction

Mr Justice Birss has once again broken new legal ground by granting what he has termed a ‘FRAND injunction in Unwired Planet v Huawei.

As a reminder, in April Mr Justice Birss handed down the first UK court decision determining a FRAND royalty rate (see here). A post-judgment hearing took place in May to establish whether or not Huawei should be subject to an injunction in the UK and the issue of permission to appeal.

The FRAND injunction

At the post-judgment hearing, Huawei had argued that the judge should not grant an injunction. As Huawei intended to appeal the decision, it said that it could not enter into the FRAND licence agreement at this stage, in case the Court of Appeal determined that different FRAND terms were appropriate. Huawei claimed that to grant an injunction now would effectively be punishing it for exercising its right to appeal. It also noted that if an injunction was granted, it would last until 2028 (when the patent found valid and infringed in the first patent trial expired), despite the FRAND licence agreement expiring in 2020. Therefore, Huawei would be forced to negotiate a new licence from an extremely weak position – it would automatically be injuncted if terms could not be agreed. 

Huawei requested that the judge accept undertakings in lieu of granting an injunction, offering to: (a) enter into the licence following its appeal, and (b) to comply with the terms of the licence as if it was in effect (including paying royalties) until its appeal was finished.

Mr Justice Birss essentially took the view that the offer of undertakings now was too little, too late. He decided that an injunction should be granted. However, he recognised the risk that this might affect negotiations or disputes about the terms of the licence in later years. To resolve this, he granted a new kind of injunction, which he called a “FRAND injunction”. This would be like a normal injunction, but with the following extra features:

  • A proviso that it would cease to have effect when the defendant enters into a FRAND licence; and
  • Express liberty to return to court to decide whether the injunction should take effect again at the end of the FRAND licence (if it ends before the relevant patents expire, or ceases to have effect for any other reason).
The injunction is to be stayed pending the result of the appeal, on terms that provide for appropriate royalty payments from Huawei to Unwired Planet in the meantime.

Permission to appeal 

Mr Justice Birss granted Huawei permission to appeal on three main issues:

  1. The global licence: including: (i) whether more than one set of terms can be FRAND, (ii) whether a UK only licence was FRAND, (iii) whether the court is able to determine FRAND terms, including rates, for territories other than the UK, and (iv) whether it is appropriate to grant an injunction excluding Huawei from the UK market unless it took a global licence.
  2. Hard-edged non-discrimination: Huawei have permission to appeal the finding that a distortion of competition is required for the non-discrimination aspect of FRAND to apply, but not whether or not there was a distortion of competition in this case.
  3. Huawei v ZTE (Article 102 TFEU): regarding the judge’s findings on abuse of dominance and injunctive relief.
This permits a fairly wide-ranging appeal, especially as regards the competition law elements of the latter two issues. The trial judgment appeared to downplay the importance of competition law in FRAND issues (see here for more information); the appeal may enable a renewed focus on it.

The FRAND licence 

In his main trial judgment, Mr Justice Birss settled the terms of the FRAND licence to be entered into by Unwired Planet and Huawei. This latest judgment annexes a copy of the final form of that licence. Given the shroud of secrecy that usually surrounds such patent licence agreements, this is a unique insight, reflective of the judge’s desire throughout the case to ensure as much transparency as possible.

Transparency is likely to be helpful as the law in this area continues to develop. With the advent of new technologies developed for 5G and the Internet of Things, new companies may need to enter the FRAND licensing field for the first time. Without being able to draw upon any previous experience of negotiating licences in this area, they will be at a disadvantage in negotiations. 

If other judgments follow Mr Justice Birss’ lead and annex copies of any FRAND agreement determined by the court, these would provide useful points of reference for negotiating parties. It might also reduce the requirements for third party disclosure (a costly, time-consuming exercise) in any subsequent litigation. Otherwise, such disclosure will be essential in FRAND cases involving relatively new entrants to the market – they are unlikely to have many licence agreements that can be used by the judge as comparables as part of the process for determining a FRAND rate.

Conclusion

Yet again, Mr Justice Birss provides plenty of food for thought. Assuming that Huawei does go ahead with its appeal, it will be fascinating to see how the Court of Appeal responds to these issues.

Pat Treacy and Matt Hunt



Premier League scores in latest dispute with pub broadcasting football matches

The ever-increasing amount of money tied up in TV deals for Premier League football perhaps makes it unsurprising that The Football Association Premier League (“FAPL”) has been willing to litigate on a number of occasions against publicans using foreign satellite services to show football matches in pubs.

Following the CJEU’s decision in the joined cases FAPL v QC Leisure and Murphy (C-403/08 and C-429/08) and the subsequent High Court decision in FAPL v QC Leisure (here) the law in this area is relatively settled. Although FAPL can grant rights on a territorial basis, exclusive licences preventing the supply of foreign satellite decoder cards into other Member States are unlawful. Despite this, the FAPL on-screen graphics and logos incorporated into the live feeds of football matches are copyright protected works. FAPL is therefore able to bring actions for copyright infringement for any unauthorised uses of these. The success of such actions will depend on the terms of the agreement that a decoder card is supplied under.

As an aside, it may be possible for pubs to avoid infringement claims by only switching the screens on at kick-off, and attempting to cover up any FAPL logos and graphics. This would be challenging in practice however, given the frequency in which graphics pop up throughout the matches (for example when a player is booked or a replay is shown).

FAPL v Luxton

The Court of Appeal has recently added to the relevant pool of judicial opinion by rejecting an appeal by Mr Luxton, the proprietor of a pub in Swansea, against the summary judgment granted in favour of FAPL by the High Court in January 2014. Mr Luxton had used a domestic satellite decoder card originally sold by a Danish broadcaster to show Swansea City matches following Swansea’s promotion to the Premier League.  Mrs Justice Rose held that by using a domestic satellite decoder card rather than a commercial one, Mr Luxton was using FAPL’s copyright works without its consent. 

Mr Luxton raised two EU law defences which have now been considered by the Court of Appeal (see here).

The two defences raised

  1. That the proceedings brought by FAPL were an illicit attempt to prevent Mr Luxton from using a foreign decoder card, isolating the UK market from the continental market in breach of Articles 101 and/or 56 TFEU.
  2. The (alleged) illegal arrangements between FAPL and its exclusive licensees in Europe had prevented Mr Luxton from obtaining a commercial foreign card; FAPL should therefore be prevented from exercising its copyright in respect of the domestic foreign card.
The Court of Appeal’s decision

Floyd LJ gave the leading judgment, disposing of both defences relatively quickly. On the first, he noted that in bringing the action, FAPL was relying on the right of a copyright owner to prevent the unauthorised communication to the public of copyrighted works. This right could also be enforced against a person in the UK who used a domestic card issued by FAPL’s UK licensee (Sky) for commercial purposes. The fact that Mr Luxton was using a foreign domestic card did not make any difference; FAPL’s right was not one that depended on the use of the card in a particular territory. Enforcement of the right could not therefore be capable of reinforcing allegedly unlawful agreements to partition the market.  

Regarding the second defence, the judge did not consider Mr Luxton’s use of the domestic card to be a consequence of FAPL’s agreements and practices. Even if the effect of those practices was to starve the market of foreign commercial cards - that did not make the use of foreign domestic cards a natural consequence of FAPL’s actions. Though Mr Luxton thought he had purchased a commercial card rather than a domestic one, this could not change the outcome, as if his argument was correct a publican who deliberately sought out a foreign domestic card would be in the same position.
 
Comments on ‘Euro-defences’

The decision provided some interesting commentary on the overlap between IP and EU/competition law, noting that it “has long been recognised that in some circumstances an intellectual property right may become unenforceable because what lies behind it is an attempt to divide up the market in the EU contrary to the provisions on free movement”. A breach of the Treaty isn’t enough – there must be a sufficient connection between the exercise of the right and the unlawful agreement in question.

Floyd LJ cited Lord Sumption’s warning in Oracle that this sort of ‘Euro-defence’ “must be scrutinised with some care” due to the risk of litigation devaluing intellectual property rights by increasing the cost and delay associated with their enforcement. In that case of course, the Euro-defence was rejected on the grounds that the unlawful conduct relied on was collateral to the particular rights which the claimant was seeking to enforce.

Scope for Commission activity?

A further point of note is that the evidence adduced in this case showed the difficulty of actually obtaining a foreign commercial card.  FAPL accepted that there is an arguable case that foreign broadcasters are still behaving as if they are bound not to provide commercial cards outside their national territories, and that if Mr Luxton had used a commercial card, he would have had an arguable defence that it authorised him to communicate the copyright works to the public in the UK. (Whether this defence would succeed may be the subject of further litigation in the future). 

Cross-border access to digital services is a central part of the Commission’s Digital Single Market Strategy and this is evidently an area in which the Commission is willing to take action – see our thoughts on the Commission’s investigation into Paramount’s pay-TV licensing practices here. This is certainly a space worth keeping an eye on in the future, as if it continues to prove difficult to obtain foreign commercial cards, thereby defeating attempts to deliver digital services across borders, there may be grounds for action by the Commission.

Breaking news – General Court confirms Lundbeck decision and fine

The General Court of the EU has upheld the European Commission decision fining Lundbeck and a number of generic companies in relation to patent settlement agreements.  At the time of writing, the full text of the decisions has not been published.

What we do know

  • The Commission’s Lundbeck decision found a restriction of competition by object only.  The recent trend towards a more restrictive interpretation of the ‘object’ category (which we discussed in the context of patent settlements here) has not prevented this novel finding being upheld by the General Court.
  • Would-be generic entrants are therefore held to be potential competitors of the patentee (Lundbeck), despite the existence of patent protection held by Lundbeck.  The fact that they had possibilities for entering the market, including through an at-risk launch, is regarded as a form of potential competition.  (Having been brought up to respect the blocking power of patents, this is something I expect to find troubling for some time to come…)
  • The fine has been upheld in full – no credit has been given for the novelty of the decision.
It is still unclear how closely the General Court has followed the Commission’s reasoning – to judge by the press release, it appears likely that the legal analysis is closely aligned.  (See our discussion of the decision itself here.)  Other than for the parties themselves, the judgment will be of immediate interest for the parties to the Paroxetine litigation in the UK: as reported here, an appeal of the CMA’s decision in that matter is due to take place before the Competition Appeal Tribunal early next year.  This decision is likely to be welcome news to the CMA… Meanwhile, companies entering into agreements settling patent litigation will need to continue to pay very careful heed to the competition rules when deciding on the terms of market access for generic products.

The General Court’s press release is available here.

Sophie Lawrance

This summer’s (not so) light reading – the CMA’s published Paroxetine decision (GSK/generics)

Some 6 months after issuing its infringement decision against GSK and a number of generic companies, the CMA has released a non-confidential version.  This comes in at a weighty 717 pages.  

Other than the grounds of appeal (on which we reported in the final paragraphs of this post), this is the first chance for companies and their advisors who weren’t involved in the proceedings to see the approach the CMA has taken, and to compare it with the current Commission approach.  First impressions are that the CMA has closely aligned itself with the Commission’s patent settlement decisions, such as Lundbeck**. The CMA and the parties will therefore be particularly keen to see the General Court’s forthcoming judgment in that case – indeed, the case management directions set down by the Competition Appeal Tribunal in the appeal proceedings against the CMA’s decision require the parties to prepare submissions on the relevance of the GC’s judgment to the case.

For those who aren’t keen on such weighty holiday reading, but can’t stand the suspense, below are a few pointers to the parts of the CMA’s legal reasoning which may be worth dipping into:

  • Paragraphs 1.3  1.20: A high level summary of the decision for those who only have an appetite for some light reading.
  • Paragraphs 3.65 – 3.84: The CMA’s view of patents, expanded upon at paragraphs 6.19-6.22.  The Windsurfing case law on the ‘public interest’ in removing ‘invalid patents’ is key: patents are treated as ‘probabilistic’ (although the term isn’t used) and are not guaranteed to be valid. Like the Commission, the CMA treats legal challenges to patent validity as part of the competitive process, and argues that the market is ‘in principle’ open to generic entry after expiry of patent protection over an API.  
  • Paragraphs 4.17 – 4.26: Overview of the market definition section which finds that, while other antidepressants may be substitutable for paroxetine, consumption patterns suggest that the actual competitive constraint is limited.  For market definition geeks, the full analysis is at paragraphs 4.29 – 4.97.  It is notable that paroxetine’s position within the ATC features only briefly, with the focus being on actual competitive constraints, including a ‘natural events’ analysis to look at the relative impact of generic entry in relation to the candidate competitor molecules (such as citalopram – the subject of the Lundbeck decision), and entry by generics of paroxetine itself (see para 4.73 in particular).
  • Once the narrow market definition is established, there isn’t much suspense as to the dénouement of the dominance ‘chapter’ (paragraphs 4.98 – 4.127).  In this context, the section on why the PPRS does not constrain pharmaceutical companies’ dominance is again unsurprising, but perhaps worth a read (paragraphs 4.124 – 4.126).
  • Paragraphs 6.1 – 6.9 and 6.204 – 6.206 contain a summary and the conclusion of the ‘object assessment’ under Article 101/Chapter I: while generally Lundbeck-esque, the reference to “the effective transfer from GSK [to GUK/Alpharma] of profit margins” strikes me as a novel way of expressing an old idea.
  • Paragraphs 7.1 – 7.3, 7.61 – 7.62 and 7.114 – 7.115 contain the summary and conclusions of the effects assessment under Article 101/Chapter I.  Even though the agreements were actually operated in the market, the CMA has confined itself to looking at their ‘likely’ effects – presumably to try to account for the fact that the outcome of the discontinued litigation is unknowable. It also concludes that the agreements assisted GSK to “preserve its market power” (paragraphs 7.63 – 7.64 and 7.116 – 7.117).
  • Leading on from that conclusion, paragraphs 8.1 – 8.3 summarise the case on abuse of a dominant position.  Central to the abuse case is the concept of inducement by GSK.  The allegations span not only the agreements in respect of which fines are issued under Article 101, but also an agreement with IVAX (for those with time on their hands, Annex M seeks to explain the discrepancy). GSK raised a number of objective justification arguments, notably around its right legitimately to defend its patent rights and to defend the company’s commercial position.  Paragraphs 8.61 – 8.67 reject these arguments, in particular on the basis that the conduct was not ‘competition on the merits’ (as per AstraZeneca) and that the conduct “went beyond the legitimate exercise of its patent rights to oppose alleged infringements”.  
  • Finally, and again for the more technically minded, at paragraphs 10.43 – 10.53, the relevance of the Vertical Agreements Block Exemption is dismissed, on the basis that the agreements were between potential competitors rather than being true ‘vertical’ arrangements.  At paragraphs 10.54 – 10.97, the parties’ Article 101(3) exemption arguments are also dismissed (spoiler alert: the exemption criteria are not found to have been fulfilled).  One curiosity is the lack of an infringement decision in relation to the agreement between GSK and IVAX.  This was held to benefit from the (now repealed) UK-specific Competition Act 1998 (Land and Vertical Agreements Exclusion) Order 2000 (now repealed).  In other words, that agreement is treated as vertical, unlike those between GSK and each of the other generic companies, even though the decision recites that IVAX did have plans to launch its own paroxetine generic.  The difference appears to be based on the context in which the agreements were reached: whereas the agreements with GUK and Alpharma related to the settlement (deferral) of litigation, that was not the case for the supply deal agreed with IVAX.  This is addressed at paragraphs 10.36 – 10.47 and in Annex M.
The paragraphs listed above focus on the legal analysis.  Those who prefer their reading less dry will want to look also at the descriptions of the agreements, and will note in particular that the ‘settlements’ considered in the decision did not finally resolve the litigation, but rather deferred it for the duration of the agreements entered into by GSK and the generic companies. Those who like tales of retribution will wish to read about the calculation of fines in section 11 – note that GSK received separate fines in relation to each of the agreements and the abuse of dominance.

The appeal hearing before the CAT is due to start next February, and to last for around a month.  By that time, the General Court will have issued its rulings in the various appeals against the Commission’s Lundbeck decision – which will doubtless be another weighty 
read for the Autumn.

** For more on Lundbeck, please see here (the abridged version) or here (the full analysis).  

Testing the patent pool waters

EC’s Investigation of Illumina for anticompetitive conduct

Demonstrating that life goes on outside of Brexit, the European Commission has opened an investigation into Illumina and Sequenom for suspected anti-competitive conduct. 

The Commission will investigate suspected breaches of Articles 101 and 102 TFEU, stemming from Illumina’s and Sequenom’s patent pool agreement concluded in December 2014 relating to non-invasive prenatal testing patents (“NIPT”). 

The agreement allowed Illumina to develop and sell in vitro diagnostic kits for NIPT and enter into licensing agreements with third parties willing to develop their own laboratory-developed tests. The agreement settled the ongoing patent disputes between the two parties and resulted in Sequenom receiving $50 million upfront and royalty payments on sales from the patent pool structure until 2020.

The information on the Commission’s investigation emerged during a Case Management Conference in UK litigation, when Premaitha Health, itself involved in litigation with Illumina in relation to NIPT-related intellectual property, referred to a communication from the Commission regarding this investigation. The Commission is believed to be looking into, on one hand, whether the 2014 agreement constitutes a restrictive agreement and gives rise to abuse of a dominant position, and on the other, whether Illumina’s licensing practices have an anti-competitive effect.

This investigation will be a rare opportunity for the Commission to give a decision in relation to patent pools, an area in which it has previously issued guidance (for instance in the rules for the assessment of technology transfer agreements (adopted on 21 March 2014 here)).

This case is also indicative of a growing trend for patent pools in the life sciences sector. This model of licensing has traditionally been more widespread in the TMT sector. Perhaps a sign that the FRAND wars (on which we reported earlier this week) may in future spread beyond the world of telecommunications…

Brexit: What it means for competition law Q&A

As the dust begins to settle on the momentous events that unfolded in the early hours of Friday 24 June, focus inevitably turns to the practical implications of what happens next.  Many articles have already been written on this subject and no doubt many more will follow.  The honest position today is that no-one can predict precisely what the long-term future holds for the UK because there is still no clarity as to which Brexit path will ultimately be chosen.  At this stage however, we can narrow the most likely options down to the following five:

  1. Leave the EU, but remain a member of the EEA (often referred to as the ‘Norwegian model’);
  2. Leave the EU, rejoin EFTA, but stay outside the EEA (often referred to as the ‘Swiss model’);
  3. Leave the EU, but join an EU customs union (often referred to as the ‘Turkish model’);
  4. Leave the EU, but negotiate individual trade terms (often referred to as the ‘Canadian model’); or
  5. Leave the EU and fall back on WTO trade terms.

Which of these routes prevails in the long-term will determine to what extent (if at all), the EU competition rules continue to apply in the UK.  Broadly speaking, Option 1 would result in no change to the status quo as regards competition law, whereas all the others would result in greater autonomy for a UK regime, potentially operating entirely separate from, but in parallel to, the EU regime.

However, the immediate consequence of the Prime Minister’s decision to resign, initiate a leadership election and to leave the decision as to when to invoke the EU’s timetable for exit under Article 50 to his successor, has given everyone a certain breathing space with which to survey the options.  Unspoken amongst these is the possibility that a UK general election will follow in the autumn, which could mean that all bets are off, including potentially even Brexit itself.

Q.   What is the immediate impact of the Brexit vote on UK competition law

A.   Nothing is likely to change at all in the short or medium term.  The prevailing national UK and EU competition regimes will remain in full force.

Q.   What about longer-term?

A.   Again, in practice, the short answer is likely to be that very little will change.  That is of course the case should the UK remain with the EEA.  Beyond that, the UK competition rules will remain in full force, operating in parallel to the EU regime.  Businesses with international operations will continue to be bound by EU rules as regards their trade within the EU.

Q.   Business relies on the legal certainty and guidance arising from the EU’s system of block exemptions.  What will happen to these assuming EU law no longer applies?

A.   The UK no longer has any national block exemptions, relying instead on the application of ‘parallel exemptions’ meaning that the EU block exemptions result in parallel exemptions from UK competition law prohibitions in addition to the EU prohibitions.  Assuming a total exit from the EU competition regime, these would no longer automatically apply and the UK would need to consider implementing new national exemptions.  Where the UK is no longer part of the single market, this could well have the result that certain limitations in the application of the block exemptions are removed (i.e. those dealing with territorial restrictions aimed at protecting parallel trade and the single market).

Q.   What happens to merger notifications?

A.   The UK’s existing merger control regime is likely to remain, although it is possible that in the longer term its voluntary nature may come under increasing pressure.  There are, however, likely to be two main effects arising directly from Brexit should EU law no longer apply in the UK.  First, there will be an increase in mergers being notified to the UK as it will no longer be possible to rely on the one-stop shop principle inherent in the EU merger regulation regime.  Mergers raising any substantive issues in the UK that would previously have fallen under the exclusive jurisdiction of Brussels will therefore require parallel notification in the UK.  Second, it is to be expected that there may be a fall in the number of mergers notified in Brussels because UK turnover will no longer count towards the EU jurisdictional criteria.  As one of the EU’s largest economies, the removal of UK turnover may therefore be expected to have a non-negligible impact.

Q.   What happens to UK competition litigation concerning EU infringements?

A.   In the short term, we see little or no change.  The doctrine of acquired rights will mean that the UK courts will continue to apply the law as it applied at the relevant time - for competition damages litigation, this will be the time of the infringement giving rise to the cause of action for damages.  In future, Brexit will have implications for the implementation of the Damages Directive dealing with follow-on actions – however, given that the deadline for implementation is 27 December 2016, it seems most likely that the UK will still be a full member of the EU and hence that this will be implemented.  As with all EU legislation given effect by national implementing legislation, the UK will need to consider whether and how to adopt and/or amend.  As regards follow-on damages, it remains to be seen how the UK legislature and courts will treat EU infringement decisions for the purposes of establishing liability.

Q.   What steps should business take now to ensure continued compliance?

A.   Understandably, businesses operating in the UK will be concerned to ensure not only that they remain fully compliant with whatever legal obligations arise as a result of Brexit but also that compliance costs can be kept to a minimum.  Pragmatically, and whatever the final outcome, the message today is one of ‘no change’.  The EU regime remains in full force for the foreseeable future and whatever the decisions that will be taken over the course of the next few months, it seems highly unlikely that substantive alterations will be made to the base rules of the game when it comes to competition compliance.

Read our previous article on Brexit here: Brexit – What next? A competition law perspective 

Sophie LawranceStephen SmithPat Treacy

Brexit – what next? A competition law perspective

Introduction

It is difficult to think of a UK statesman who did more for European unity or was more supportive of the idea of a union amongst the states of Europe than Winston Churchill and it is hence with some hesitation that we begin this article about the UK’s exit from the European Union with one of his many quotable soundbites:

"Now this is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning". 

Yet that is precisely the situation facing the UK after it woke up on 24 June to the reality that it had voted decisively in favour of leaving the European Union. This has left politicians, diplomats, business and lawyers wondering what this means in practice and what happens next. Of course the nature of the position is such that the greatest certainty today remains one of uncertainty as to what happens next – although the vote to leave was clear, there is no consensus whatsoever as to what happens next.

At one extreme, EU membership could be replaced by the UK joining the European Free Trade Association and the European Economic Area (alongside Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein). From many perspectives, including as regards competition law, this would clearly be the most straightforward, giving rise as it would to the fewest changes. This would entail a continued financial contribution to the EU budget and requirement to sign up to free movement of persons in exchange for access to the single market. UK courts would in effect continue to be bound by EU legislation and by decisions of the European courts. So far so good, but politically it is difficult to see how this squares with a Brexit campaign that has focused so overtly on immigration and repatriation of UK funds away from Brussels.

At the other extreme, the UK could seek a total exit, falling back on World Trade Organisation (“WTO”) rules to continue trading with the EU, but without access to the single market. Under this outcome, EU law would simply become another overseas jurisdiction, persuasive, but no more to the UK authorities and the courts.

At this stage it is too early to say anything definitive on which direction might ultimately be pursued. However, now that we have moved beyond the hypothetical and the UK begins its journey into uncharted waters, there are some general points to be made whatever our final destination.

Of course most aspects of UK law will be affected to a certain extent, but competition law and policy is one area where integration is perhaps its deepest and hence forms the focus of this article. Patent law and particularly work towards creation of the Unified Patent Court is also deeply and directly affected and our thoughts on the Brexit implications for the UPC can be read here.

Merger Control

EU and EEA member states benefit from the ‘one-stop’ shop of the EU Merger Regulation, meaning that transactions that meet the jurisdictional criteria may be notified and assessed in Brussels to the exclusion of national regimes. If the UK joins the EEA, there will therefore be no practical change to the current system. However, a total exit would require companies to assess whether transactions need to be conditional on UK and EU merger clearances. Whilst the UK operates a voluntary notification regime, transactions giving rise to any substantive overlaps are routinely notified in advance in the interests of legal certainty.

A total exit may therefore be expected to give rise to duplication and increased costs as international transactions with a UK element fall to be reviewed under both the UK regime and in Brussels in parallel. There are also obvious resource and hence cost implications for the UK competition authority, costs which ultimately could be expected to be passed through to business.

Cartels and investigations

The main UK competition rules concerning anti-competitive agreements and abuse of dominance broadly mirror equivalent EU provisions. There is no obvious reason why the UK would choose to use a Brexit as an opportunity to undertake wholesale revision of the competition regime and hence we envisage very little in the way of practical implications as regards the implementation of UK competition law.

However, as with merger control, the biggest impact is most likely to be one of duplication – pan-European cartels and issues will probably face parallel investigations by the UK and EU competition authorities, potentially giving rise to increased fines.

State Aid and Public Procurement

If the UK were to join the EEA it would be required to comply with the EU rules on state aid and hence the position would be one of ‘no change’. However, in the event of a ‘total exit’, the UK would no longer be bound by the rules aimed at protecting the single market and the far looser rules under the WTO would apply (e.g. prohibitions on trade subsidies). Crucially, the WTO rules would not prevent the UK subsidising ‘national champions’ and hence could result in direct Government intervention to support businesses such as Tata Steel.

The situation in relation to public procurement is similar. Whilst EEA membership would bring with it a continued obligation to comply with EU rules, a total exit would leave the UK free to create its own national rules outside of the EU regime. In practice however, it seems inconceivable that any UK system would not result in similar obligations for the award of public contracts in the interests of transparency, value for money and non-discrimination as between bidders.

Competition Policy

It is to be expected that the UK competition authorities will cease to be full members of the European Competition Network upon exit, which in the absence of separate agreements will mean a reduced UK voice in the shaping and development of competition policy at an EU level and ultimately globally. Whilst that leaves the UK free to pursue its own policy objectives, this might result over the longer term in a gradual shift away from the existing alignment with EU law as the UK regime adapts to life outside the EU. At least initially, however, we would expect any practical impact to be limited.

Competition Litigation

The position is most uncertain as regards competition litigation, particularly enforcement of damages claims. The UK had sought to position itself as a leading jurisdiction for the private enforcement of EU competition rights (alongside Germany and the Netherlands). It is to be expected that once the UK has finally left the EU, EU Commission decisions and EU law will cease to have a binding effect on the UK courts and the UK courts would consequently cease to be such an attractive forum for claimants.

But that might not be the final word – the UK remains a large market with a well-respected judicial system. Given the similarities that exist and will likely persist in the substantive provisions, it is probable that EU infringement findings will remain highly persuasive to the UK courts and hence there might actually be an increase in cases pursued in parallel in the UK and an EU court. UK courts are also adept at resolving conflict of law issues and can be expected to apply the law as it stood when the infringement took place and/or when the right to sue accrued. Hence EU competition law may continue to be of relevance in the UK Courts for some time to come, whatever the outcome on the exit negotiations.

Conclusion

And so we are now at the end of the beginning of the UK’s exit from the European Union.All we can say with certainty today is that the UK electorate has delivered a clear, if far from unanimous, mandate to its government to start the process of extricating the UK from the EU. But the main message to businesses operating within the UK can also be summed up by a historic cliché:‘Keep calm and carry on’.

At a very practical level the present system is likely to persist for some time. Furthermore, most businesses will remain subject to the same general restrictions and obligations as they do today, albeit with a greater risk of duplication and/or parallel reviews. Watch this space as we move from the end of the beginning to a new chapter in the UK’s relationship with the EU.

Sophie LawranceStephen SmithPat Treacy

The CMA still has pharma and medical devices in its sights

The CMA has been slowly but surely opening a raft of new investigations in the pharma and medical devices industries.  

It announced last week that it is investigating suspected anti-competitive conduct in the medical equipment sector under Chapter II CA 98 and Article 102 TFEU.  An initial 6-month timetable is set down, with the CMA hoping to be in a position to decide whether to take the investigation into the Statement of Objections phase by around October.

Last week also saw the CMA announce that it is investigating anti-competitive arrangements in the pharmaceutical sector under Chapter I CA and Article 102. This will follow the same timetable. 

Just a few weeks earlier, the CMA announced another separate investigation into suspected abuses of a dominant position in the pharma sector.

The CMA recently closed a possible market investigation into possible anti-competitive causes of medicines shortages and it is possible that at least some of these investigations will be shelved before more public information is made available.  However, at least two other longer-standing pharma-industry-focused investigations remain on foot, including:

  • The investigation into possible excessive prices charged by Pfizer for phenytoin sodium, which we have been following here on The CLIP Board: a formal Statement of Objections has been sent in this case, and an oral hearing held; last week Pfizer was fined £10,000 for a procedural infringement in connection with a failure to provide information, a salutary reminder for those involved in CMA investigations in any industry, as the CMA itself points out (“The imposition of an administrative penalty [on Pfizer] […] is critical to achieve deterrence, ie to impress both on the party under investigation, and more widely, the seriousness of a failure to comply with a statutory deadline, without a reasonable excuse.”…).  A decision is due in around August 2016.
  • An investigation into possible abusive discounts which is coming towards the end of its initial phase, and should be the subject of a decision to close or proceed next month.
One case which was not shelved was the Paroxetine patent settlements case (see our earlier post here).  Following the CMA’s imposition in February of £45 million of fines, it has been confirmed that GSK and all of the generics have appealed to the CAT.  The full text of the infringement decision has still not been published by the CMA, but the notices of appeal against the CMA’s decision have appeared on the website of the Competition Appeal Tribunal.  

GSK’s appeal encompasses eight separate grounds, six of which are on issues of substantive law (with two subsidiary grounds on the fining decision).  It is evident from GSK’s appeal that the CMA has followed the Commission in proceeding on the basis of both object and effect analyses in their Article 101/Chapter I infringement decisions, as well as in claiming an abuse of dominance arising from the set of facts.  GSK is unsurprisingly appealing the finding of dominance, which arose from the identification of a relevant market limited to a single molecule.
The CMA is clearly keeping a close eye on the pharmaceutical and medical industries – and we will continue to keep a close eye on the CMA’s activities in this area.