23 May 2017
An announcement by the European Commission last week resolves an open question about its view on the recent spate of pharma sector excessive pricing cases that have been seen in Italy and the UK. The Commission has now confirmed that, following dawn raids across four member states in February, it has opened an investigation into Aspen Pharma for suspected breach of Article 102. The concern is that Aspen’s pricing practices in relation to off patent drugs containing five ingredients used for treating cancer has led to unjustified price increases. This overlaps with the Italian Market Competition Authority’s decision in October 2016 to fine Aspen €5.2 million for unfair price increases, which covered four of the five ingredients now under investigation (see here for our report). This is the Commission’s first excessive pricing case in the pharma sector, following a trend set by the national competition authorities (including in the UK and US – although given that US antitrust does not apply to pure pricing issues, the US cases have tended to focus on another form of abuse (e.g. here) which led to the excessive prices). The EU NCAs have been well placed to deal with such conduct, as pharma markets are national in scope, and subject to significant regional differences resulting from the different formation of public health services. However, setting the benchmark price is a difficult – and controversial – aspect in any investigation (see here for our thoughts on the CMA’s recent approach) and it will be of interest to see how the Commission tackles the issue, as its approach may well be followed by other NCAs.
Bearing these points in mind, we will be particularly keen to see how the Commission deals with the following two points:
- The definition of the relevant market and whether a company is dominant – before assessing whether its prices are excessive, a pharma company must first know whether it is dominant. With diverging approaches on product market definition (definitions have been drawn from therapeutic / molecular / dosage level and from regulatory guidance), it can be difficult to make an assessment of dominance. In Aspen’s case, it has found itself one of few companies willing to manufacture low volume generic drugs, and despite low barriers to entry, no other companies have entered the market to exert a form of price control on Aspen. It has perhaps therefore become dominant as a result of market failures.
- How the Commission determines an acceptable level of profit (i.e., what is the meaning of ‘excessive’?). While under patent protection, pharmaceutical product prices are generally constrained in some way (e.g. through profit caps under the UK PPRS), but in theory, profits could be competed upwards following patent expiry, even if overall prices decline (this is a key part of the argument raised by Pfizer and Flynn in their appeals of the CMA infringement decision). The recent opinion of AG Wahl considering unfair prices (albeit in a copyright licence context) concluded that there is no single method of determining the benchmark, and acknowledges that there is a high risk of error, but a price should only be excessive if it is significantly and persistently above whatever benchmark is determined. Whilst AG Wahl was unable to point to any guaranteed failsafe methods of analysis, he stated that an authority should only intervene when there is no doubt that an abuse has been committed.
The investigation does signal that the Commission is keen to address the fairness of pricing in the pharmaceutical industry, but as with all such investigations, its approach should not be one of a price regulator. Indeed, the Commission is at pains to point out that it is looking at a case where the price increases were extremely significant (100s of percent uplift). It may reveal that a case-by-case approach is not appropriate, and the real issue is regulatory failure that will need to be corrected by legislation (such as that currently before the UK Parliament).
23 January 2017
On 18 January, the FTC announced that Mallinckrodt ARD Inc. (formerly Questcor Pharmaceuticals, Inc.) and its parent company have agreed to pay $100 million to settle FTC charges that they violated antitrust laws when Questcor acquired the rights to a drug that threatened its monopoly in the U.S. market for adrenocorticotropic hormone (ACTH) drugs. The announcement was made concurrently with the release of the FTC's complaint. Antitrust (as opposed to merger) cases about acquisitions of competing technology are not an everyday occurrence. However, this complaint has something of the flavour of the EU Commission’s Tetra Pak 1 decision. In that case, the EU Commission objected to Tetra Pak’s acquisition (through a merger) of exclusive rights to what was at the time the only viable competing technology to Tetra Pak’s dominant aseptic packaging system. The Commission (and subsequently the EU courts) held that this would prevent competitors from entering the market and therefore amounted to an abuse of a dominant position.
The FTC’s Mallinckrodt complaint alleges that while benefitting from an existing monopoly over the only U.S. ACTH drug, Acthar, Questcor illegally acquired the U.S. rights to develop a competing drug, Synacthen (a synthetic ACTH drug which is pharmacologically very similar to Acthar). This acquisition stifled competition by preventing any other company from using the Synacthen assets to develop a synthetic ACTH drug, preserving Questcor’s monopoly and allowing it to maintain extremely high prices for Acthar.
To judge by the FTC’s complaint, the case appears to contain some pretty stark facts which may have contributed to the immediate settlement of the proceedings by Mallinckrodt. Those facts also bring the case squarely into line with the US and EU competition regulators’ current concern over excessive pricing in pharma.
First up is the finding that Questcor had a 100% share of the U.S. ACTH market and that it took advantage of that monopoly to repeatedly raise the prices of Acthar from $40 a vial in 2001 to more than $34,000 per vial today – an 85,000% increase. The complaint details that in August 2007 Questcor increased the price of Acthar more than 1,300% overnight from $1,650 to $23,269 per vial and that it has taken significant and profitable increases on eight occasions since 2011 pushing the price up another 46% to its current $34,034 per vial. Acthar is a speciality drug used to treat infantile spasms, a rare seizure disorder affecting infants, as well as being a drug of last resort (owing to its cost) for a variety of other serious medical conditions. According to the FTC, Acthar treatment for an infant with infantile spasms can cost more than $100,000. In Europe, Canada and other parts of the world doctors treat these conditions with Synacthen which is available at a fraction of the price of Acthar in the U.S. (Synacthen is not available in the U.S. as it does not have FDA approval.) The FTC relies on the supra-competitive prices charged in the U.S. for Acthar as evidence of Questcor’s monopoly power as well as its 100% market share and the existence of substantial barriers to entry.
It is also part of the FTC’s case that Questcor disrupted the bidding process for Synacthen when the rights came up for acquisition. According to the complaint, Questcor first sought to acquire Synacthen in 2009, and continued to monitor the competitive threat posed by Synacthen thereafter. When the U.S. rights to Synacthen were eventually marketed in 2011, dozens of companies expressed an interest in acquiring them with three firms proceeding through several rounds of detailed negotiations. All three firms planned to commercialise Synacthen and to use it to compete directly with Acthar including by pricing Synacthen well below Acthar. In October 2012, Questcor submitted an offer for Synacthen and subsequently acquired the rights to Synacthen for the U.S. and thirty-five other countries and did not subsequently bring the product to market in the US.
In addition to the $100 million payout, the proposed court order requires that Questcor grant a licence to develop Synacthen to treat infantile spasms and nephrotic syndrome to a licensee approved by the FTC, a pretty far-reaching remedy.
This case is the latest in a string of cases on both sides of the Atlantic relating to escalating pharma prices (as discussed in our previous blog posts here and here). While companies retain significant scope to price products as they see fit, it reaffirms that pharma companies should be wary of implementing very significant price increases in the absence of good objective reasons for doing so. This is particularly so where the increase is facilitated by commercial strategies such as acquiring IP rights to existing/potentially competitive products. In the EU, it is also worth remembering that – as established by Tetra Pak I (on appeal to the General Court) – an agreement which falls within a block exemption can at the same time constitute an infringement of Article 102. So companies and their advisors should remember to wear Article 101 and 102 hats when reviewing agreements.
13 December 2016
The year is 2011. The Office of Fair Trading (the predecessor to the current Competition and Markets Authority) contributes to an OECD round table on excessive pricing, concluding that: “firms should not face fines for excessive pricing, and should not face the risk of private damages actions in respect of such behaviour”. Five years later, in early December this year, the CMA announced that its investigation into the supply of phenytoin sodium capsules by Pfizer and Flynn had concluded with its highest ever fine (£90 million), and ordered the companies to reduce their prices within 4 months. How times change… Excessive pricing is one of the more controversial types of abuse of dominance – the lack of a bright line test between competitive and anti-competitive pricing has meant that infringement decisions in relation to this form of abuse have been rarely pursued. Indeed, this is the first UK competition authority decision based on excessive pricing by a pharmaceutical company since the 2001 Napp decision, which involved differential pricing in the hospital and community sectors. As we have previously reported, however, something of a sea change in competition policy currently appears to be taking place, at least for certain parts of the pharmaceutical sector.
The full reasoning of this decision will therefore be closely reviewed. For now, however, the text of the decision remains unpublished. While we wait for a non-confidential version, the following 4 points seem to us to be worth noting:
- Phenytoin sodium is not a new drug – it has been off patent for many years, although only entered as a generic following the conclusion of a UK supply deal between Pfizer and Flynn. The case – as with other high profile excessive pricing investigations in the EU and beyond (see here/here) – concerns a sudden and significant jump in previously established market pricing, in this case of around 2,600%. This is an entirely different legal and commercial context to that applicable for new or branded drugs: it would be extremely surprising if this decision provides any new basis for future intervention in relation to drugs which are subject to the PPRS, even at the stage of free initial pricing.
- Although two companies are involved, no anti-competitive collusion has been alleged. Rather, the case is based only on abuse of dominance. It is rare for such cases to involve two separate companies. Here, the allegation appears not to be that Pfizer and Flynn are jointly dominant, but that each holds a separate dominant position and has separately proved it. This is a surprising feature of the investigation – proving excessive pricing is notoriously difficult, and the CMA given itself the task of pulling that off twice, with each company being held separately to have extracted supra-competitive prices. Flynn is at once the ‘victim’ of Pfizer’s excessive pricing, and the perpetrator of an abuse of its own.
- The basis for the findings of dominance is also far from obvious. While details of how the market has been defined have not yet been released, it appears from a 2015 parallel trade case also relating to Flynn Pharma’s phenytoin sodium product that the drug is only a third line treatment for certain specific types of epilepsies, and that its sales have been in decline for a number of years. It appears that the CMA’s dominance finding may be based on clinical guidance that stabilised patients should remain on one specific brand of product rather than being switched between different formulations even of the same API. The trend to ultra-narrow market definition in the pharma sector thus appears to be continuing (see Perindopril, Paroxetine…) – but query whether it will survive review in the Competition Appeal Tribunal.
- And finally, compliance with the price reduction remedy may not be straightforward – the companies will have to calculate what measure of reduction is sufficient to bring the infringement to an end. Pfizer has already been subject to a procedural fine for failure to comply with a procedural order; if the companies miscalculate their price reductions, further fines could follow – in addition to the now inevitable follow-on claims from, at least, the Department of Health.
26 October 2016
Earlier this month, the GSMA – an association representing various mobile operators – published a report: ‘Resetting Competition Policy Frameworks for the Digital Ecosystem’ – see here for an Executive Summary. The GSMA proposes a more nuanced approach to competition policy in the digital economy following the EU Commission’s Digital Single Market initiatives (see previous posts here and here). The GSMA suggests that it is necessary to create a regulatory environment fit for the digital age. We summarise the four main themes below.
Market definition and market power
The study points to:
- an unprecedented uptake in new technologies:
- an increasing use of big data to gain a competitive advantage (see our opinions here); and
- a rising number of cases where price is not the critical factor for consumer decision-making.
In the light of these findings, it is suggested that competition authorities need to adapt their approach to defining product and geographic markets. Recommendations include:
- Focussing on the products and services consumers genuinely view as viable substitutes to inform market definition;
- Investigating how the quality of goods and services which are provided at no monetary cost can be used as part of a market power analysis; and
- Revising market definitions where there is substantial evidence to do so.
Adopting a total welfare standard in digital markets
The GSMA has urged competition authorities to take into account the effect of conduct on product quality, innovation and economic efficiencies (‘Total Welfare’) rather than simply pricing effects. It proposes that looking at the bigger picture could entail positive effects on investments, quality of products and services and performance in digital markets. Recommendations include:
- Adopting a total welfare standard to support productivity growth /higher living standards;
- Focussing on dynamic effects when assessing mergers and competition in digital markets. This might enable certain mergers to be cleared that could benefit society; and
- Adapting the approach to efficiencies by use of experts, identifying efficiencies in earlier transactions and utilising new analytical techniques.
Rebalancing ex ante and ex post regulation
The report notes that technologies such as cloud computing, social media, and the use of the Internet of Things are no longer entirely novel but they do continue to alter how businesses operate, and products and services are being offered in new and sometimes unpredictable ways. As entire industries are adapting to this changing digital environment there is a concern that regulating on the basis of predictions (‘ex ante’) could distort competition and deter innovation. GSMA’s study argues that applying competition law in the light of experience and facts (‘ex post’), is more flexible and can be tailored to experience of changing market conditions. Recommendations include:
- Reviewing the thresholds for ex ante regulation to ensure that the potential negative impact on investment and modernisation that may arise is analysed against any possible gains;
- Focussing ex ante regulation on enduring market power; and
- Ensuring consistent and streamlined regulation that conforms to competition law.
While noting that there is no ‘one-size-fits-all’ institutional arrangement, the report calls for competition authorities to be independent and transparent; to adopt policies which support investment and innovation; and to cooperate closely with regulators in moving towards ex post enforcement.
The GSMA is careful not to criticise the principles currently underpinning competition policy and enforcement in Europe. However, it is firm in the view that features of the competition regulatory framework must be updated to allow digital services the right environment to flourish and to ensure appropriate conditions for competition. That view is not necessarily universal, and it will be interesting to see how others react to the GSMA’s recommendations.
19 October 2016
Pricing issues in the pharmaceutical industry have continued to keep competition authorities busy, this time with the Italian Market Competition Authority (AGCM) fining the multinational South African pharmaceutical company Aspen near €5.2 million on 14 October 2016, following its finding that Aspen abused its dominance to artificially inflate the price of four of its cancer drugs. In its press release/statement, the AGCM stated that Aspen, which had acquired the rights to the four essential drugs (Leukeran (chlorambucil), Alkeran (melphalan), Purinethol (mercaptopurine) and Tioguanine (tioguanine)) from GlaxoSmithKline (GSK), had threatened to interrupt their supply to the Italian market in order to compel the Italian Medicines Agency to accept price increases for the drugs of between 300%-1,500% of the initial price. The drugs were described by the AGCM as “irreplaceable” and central to the treatment of blood cancers especially for children and elderly patients. In the relevant period Aspen was the only supplier of these drugs in the Italian market, which led to the finding that Aspen held a dominant position in the relevant national market and had unfairly increased the prices. The AGCM noted in particular that there was no direct substitute for the drugs, the patents had been expired for years and no economic justification for the price increases could be established.
The antitrust authority applied a two-step test to determine whether the increase in pricing amounted to unfair pricing in contravention of Article 102. The AGCM first established that there was an excessive discrepancy between the manufacturing costs and the final prices of the products and secondly considered that the pricing was excessive and unfair, by reference to factors such as the change in prices and any economic basis for this change, any potential benefits for patients, and conversely any harm to the Italian National Health Service.
There is no easy method for competition authorities (or indeed companies) to determine what constitutes excessive pricing, due to the number of variables involved. A justified price increase might be due to increased manufacturing costs or could be the reflection of a profitable market or a high-risk marketing strategy, among other factors. Ultimately, the determination of when a price is excessive remains challenging, and – where pharmaceuticals are involved – may well vary from country to country. As yet, the impact of excessive pricing on reference prices has not been examined.
Italy is not the only country to look at excessive pricing of off-patent drugs, however. Another example from the UK (on which we have reported here and here) is the ongoing CMA investigation into the pricing of the anti-epilepsy drug Epanutin by Pfizer and Flynn Pharma (the latter having acquired the marketing rights of Epanutin by Pfizer in late 2012). The CMA has recently updated its case file to push back the expected date of the conclusion of the investigation, to November 2016. The focus of the investigation is understood to be whether the pricing for phenytoin sodium capsules is excessive and unfair and thus constitutes an Article 102 and Chapter II abuse. On the other side of the Atlantic, the antitrust authorities have considered similar issues with the 50-fold increase in the price of Turing Pharmaceuticals’ Daraprim and the more recent Mylan EpiPen controversy, caused by a six-fold price rise in the popular emergency allergy treatment. In September 2016, Mylan became the subject of a congressional hearing on this subject. The allegations about increased pricing were followed by suggestions that Mylan had been misclassifying EpiPen as a generic, as opposed to as a branded product, in order to benefit from the lower rebate rate available (13%) than the equivalent for branded drugs (23%). In this case, it was of significance that Mylan had a market share of around 90%, and the increase in pricing was accompanied by a direct increase in Mylan’s profits. The US FDA itself was criticised for not intervening more effectively in order to allow competing products to reach the market. The complex topic of excessive pricing continues to be an issue in the EU more generally. The announcement of the Aspen investigation has led to calls by public interest bodies such as the BEUC for the Commission to carry out EU-wide investigations into whether companies use similar tactics to increase pricing. No doubt, as the case law develops, so will our understanding of when a company’s pricing tactics risk being in breach of Article 102.
7 October 2016
A recent judgment from Mr Justice Roth in the Patents Court highlights the importance of parties considering the sensible case management of competition defences in patent litigation and potential cost implications. The judgment is from a case management conference in proceedings between several parties including Illumina Inc, Sequenom Inc, and Premaitha Health Plc. The case is primarily patent litigation that is due to go to trial in July 2017. In April 2016, the defendant Premaitha Health plc sought to introduce various competition law defences. Pleadings were already advanced on the technical patent issues and the defendant sought permission to amend its defence. This was discussed at a CMC in April. The presiding judge (Mr Justice Birss) adjourned the application to be heard at a later hearing. The defendant had served its amended pleading only two days before the CMC and so he recognised that the claimants could not be expected to address a wholly new case at such very short notice. The proposed non-technical defences addressed complex questions under competition law and the claimants were not represented by specialist competition counsel at that first CMC. Regardless, the defendant pressed the court to grant permission to amend its defences at the first CMC taking the position that the claimants could subsequently on full consideration of the pleadings apply to strike them out or for summary judgment. The judge (unsurprisingly) did not agree this would be appropriate. He adjourned the application to a second CMC once the claimants had had time to consider properly the proposed amendments and had been able to give notice of the aspects of the defence to which they objected or consented. He remarked that if this second hearing did not take place for some reason then the defendant would be given permission to serve the non-technical defences in the form annexed to the defendant’s application.
The second CMC took place on 1 July (the judgment has just been handed down).
Roth J, decided that actually the most appropriate course of action in terms of the efficient conduct of the litigation at this stage would be to further adjourn the non-technical defences application to be restored once the technical judgment had been handed down. The main reason given is that the precise content of the competition law arguments in this case depends on the scope of the patents. The market definition alleged by the defendant is framed in terms of patented technology that is an essential input to the allegedly infringing product produced by the defendant. So any change to the scope of the patent in the technical trial could have a substantial effect on market definition and non-technical arguments that depend on that market definition. Additionally, the Judge notes that the draft non-technical pleadings are vague and general in places and that a technical judgment would enable a much more sophisticated and tighter focus to be brought on the competition issues. He also mentions two additional (but subsidiary) reasons why he thinks this is a more sensible approach: (i) the Commission is conducting a competition law investigation which appears to cover the same ground as in the draft non-technical defences (on which we reported here) and further clarity as to the Commission’s investigations should be reached by when the technical judgment in the current proceedings is handed down; and (ii) one of the non-technical defences relates to a settlement agreement between Illumina Inc and Sequenom Inc which to date the defendant has only seen a heavily redacted version. Roth J suggests that this issue can be dealt with by way of further disclosure in due course which will enable consideration of whether the proposed pleading raises an arguable case.
On costs (which Roth J notes were significant), he ordered that they should be reserved (as a fair assessment requires knowledge of how the matter is going to proceed after judgment in the technical trial) save as to the defendant’s costs which the defendant had to bear. He stated that an applicant (here the defendant) has a responsibility to consider how its application should sensibly be managed and determined. He warned “[t]here may perhaps be some lessons from all this. If competition defences are now being introduced on this contingent basis in patent litigation, consideration needs to be given as to how the pleading, and any argument about strike out or summary judgment for the respondent to that pleading, should sensibly be managed. I doubt that this is the last case where such non-technical defences will be introduced”.
This case acts as a reminder of the importance of parties taking a reasonable position when asserting competition law defences in patent litigation and considering how they should best be case managed in the circumstances (or alternatively being prepared for costs consequences). The facts of this case (notably, the proximity of the raising of the non-technical defences to trial and the defendant’s approach to how strike out or summary judgment should be handled) are not entirely standard and this no doubt had a particular bearing in this case. However, given the propensity of the UK courts to be inclined to order “patents first, non-technical defences second” in the absence of agreement between the parties to the contrary, and also to defer to any parallel competition law investigation particularly where the alleged non-technical defences concern complex issues of competition law, the outcome is not entirely surprising. Something for all defendants (and claimants) to keep in mind.
16 September 2016
On Friday 9 September 2016, I attended the International Conference on Competition and Regulation in Digital Markets, a smoothly-run conference hosted by the University of Leeds School of Law. It featured a host of well-informed speakers from a variety of backgrounds. The keynote speech was given by Dr Andrea Coscelli acting Chief Executive of the CMA (the full text of which is available here). He flagged the CMA’s interest in digital tools, both as an aid to the investigative processes and also as part of any remedial actions, referencing the remedies proposed following the recent CMA investigations into the UK energy and retail banking markets.
The speakers raised a number of interesting questions faced by courts and regulators in the fast-moving world of digital technology. For example:
- How can a static market definition be successfully applied to markets filled with constantly changing products?
- How can regulators know when to act in markets that are still developing so quickly?
- Is there a real risk that dominant digital companies will be discouraged from innovating further due to antitrust fears?
- What will the impact be of automatic algorithms capable of doing shopping on behalf of consumers?
Another feature of the event was the frequent differences between the perspectives of the economists and lawyers present. For example, there was some debate about the relevance of price substitution to market definition (the conclusion was that the focus should be on competitive restraints) and the extent to which vertical restraints are capable of restricting competition.
A development that nicely encapsulates some of the issues identified above is the Commission’s recently proposed overhaul of telecoms regulations (which we reported on here).
Some of the new rules apply to web communications services such as WhatsApp and Skype, thus extending the regulatory burden beyond its previous parameters. One of the speakers at the conference, James Waterworth, pointed out that services like WhatsApp aren’t limited by the bottleneck of requiring a physical telephone line in the same way that traditional telecoms providers are. They operate in a completely different way, so why should they be regulated in the same way?
After all, what happens if the services develop in the same way as the instant messaging service WeChat has in China, by including additional functionality such as video games and the ability to transfer money to other users within the app? Is that still a communications service that should be regulated in the same way as a company providing a landline? Or is it a banking service that will fall within financial regulation? Is adding layers of regulation consistent with the Commission’s exhortations to EU Member States to “aim to relieve operators from unnecessary regulatory burden, regardless of the business model adopted”? (See the Communication on the “collaborative economy” published in June 2016.)
There are many questions here, and not so many answers (yet…). We’ll be keeping a close eye on how developments in this area play out.
12 August 2016
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).
15 July 2016
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…
23 May 2016
Qualcomm, the largest manufacturer of baseband chipsets for mobile phones, has recently found itself under attack again for its business practices.
In September last year, the UK chipset maker Icera and its US-based parent company Nvidia launched proceedings against Qualcomm in the UK. Court filings that were made public last month make clear that the claimants are seeking compensation for losses suffered as a result of Qualcomm’s alleged “unlawful abuse of dominance”.
Nvidia spent $352 million to acquire Icera in 2011 – but was forced to wind down its mobile broadband chipset business, including its Icera unit, just four years later. Nvidia claims that Qualcomm’s aggressive pricing strategies – selling chipsets below the costs of development and production – drove Icera out of the market and caused Nvidia’s applications-processor business to incur substantial losses.
Nvidia is arguing that Qualcomm has a dominant position in essential patents for 3G and 4G wireless standards, and that this position has enhanced its strength downstream in the sale of chipsets to mobile device manufacturers. It further argues that Qualcomm’s dominance in the market for slim modem chipsets is “reinforced by barriers to entry and expansion”.
According to the claim filed by Nvidia and Icera, Qualcomm’s aggressive and anticompetitive behaviour led to “unexplained delays in customer orders, reductions in demand volumes and contracts never being entered into, even after a customer […] had agreed or expressed a strong intention to purchase” Nvidia’s chipsets. Nvidia says that it was forced to reduce prices to retain customers, which had an adverse impact on revenues and impaired its technical ability to innovate.
The recent developments in the UK-based action come on the back of the two Statements of Objections that the European Commission sent to Qualcomm in December 2015. In the first of these, the Commission set out its preliminary findings that Qualcomm made illegal payments to a manufacturer-customer in exchange for that manufacturer exclusively using Qualcomm chipsets in its smartphones and tablets. In the second Statement of Objections, the Commission took the preliminary view that Qualcomm deliberately sold chipsets below cost with the aim of hindering competition, forcing Icera out of the market in particular.
EU Commissioner for Competition Margrethe Vestager said in December last year: “Many consumers enjoy high-speed internet on smartphones and other devices – baseband chipsets are key components that make this happen. I am concerned that Qualcomm’s actions may have pushed out competitors or prevented them from competing. We need to make sure that European consumers continue to benefit from competition and innovation in an area which is at the heart of today’s economy.”
We understand that Qualcomm is due to respond to the Commission’s allegations shortly.
As we have pointed out previously, Qualcomm is no stranger to allegations of anticompetitive conduct. It can confidently be said that many in the mobile telecoms industry will be keeping a close eye on the High Court proceedings and Commission investigations, not least Nvidia and Icera.