If you're too busy to read all 920 paragraphs of Case T-321/05 AstraZeneca v Commission, delivered today by the General Court of the European Union, let the IPKat help you at least find out what all the fuss is about. Aided only by his native wit and his well-informed friend Stephanie Bodoni (Bloomberg), he can tell you that the day was one of sweetness and bitterness for drug company AstraZeneca.This morning the European Union's second-highest court [that's the second-highest of two, unless you count the EU's Civil Service Tribunal] upheld the finding of the European Commission that AstraZeneca -- the UK's second-largest pharma company -- misled patent officials and flouted antitrust rules in order to keep a generic competitor off the market. However, the company s fine from 60 million euros to a mere 52.5 million euros [i.e. more or less the cost of buying a good footballer]. The product which AZ had so mischievously sought to keep to itself was Omeprazole, sold as Prilosec and Losec heartburn medicine (among other names).
AstraZeneca had challenged the European Commission's decision back in June 2005 to fine it for market abuse and misleading patent offices in Germany, Belgium, Denmark, Norway, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom, not to mention numerous courts, over Prilosec. While this finding remains unscathed, the General Court [correctly, in this Kat's view] reversed the Commission's finding that AstraZeneca breached EU rules by withdrawing market approvals for older versions of the medicine in Denmark and Norway, thus preventing market entry by generic producers and parallel importers.
Heartburn in cats here
The Commission's decision (Case COMP/A.37.507/F3 – AstraZeneca) here
Heartache for heartburn drugmaker, though court sweetens the bitter pill
Reviewed by Jeremy
on
Thursday, July 01, 2010
Rating:
Reviewed by Jeremy
on
Thursday, July 01, 2010
Rating:
Follow the IPKat on LinkedIn 
![[Guest post] EUIPO Second Board of Appeal refers case to Grand Board of Appeal following earlier refusal to register a photograph of a man’s head/face as an EU trade mark](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiUj9v-k3DYaSVMR4lsmKDLHVB5nIoINuvZNbH2TQCelrfaAE9qmGSAQs-plzQ7HnZ7Svk_gRdrIODp0Nat5vpWajduit3xkArNhK76AHhX770RIJ62thfCVI5fnvcXU-5zH4NkUSfPY9FjRMFiK7OKJ7m7YSo2FzhyPSoA8ZWCsxaOXb0bBCoPQA/s72-c/Picture%201.png)
![[Guest post] Benelux Office rules on opposition proceedings prepared by ChatGPT](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi29VY0rNNP1Hqyz8RgB47r4q7fhqQfYHxsEbX_RKmT4KU5Y_vg7vB6dsAW91CidjMfJ38klTvD4mMtZb3QmwFPAHaGF88BPttWSbfYvo7UUg7MpFRTNtEjThmG0QaX2qZFFHSnN71i3YQZSBFC0SL7PgkAlme-XH8cSNWRFbOAOuLr_LMOGcImLQ/s72-c/Screenshot%202024-12-04%20at%2020.45.58.png)
Posts
Check out paras 864 and 865 - in fact, the Court did not "reverse[] the Commission's finding that AstraZeneca breached EU rules by withdrawing market approvals for older versions of the medicine in Denmark and Norway, thus preventing market entry by generic producers and parallel importers".
ReplyDeleteIt upheld the Commission's finding that the deregistration was abusive by restricting generic access to the market in Denmark, Norway and Sweden. It also upheld the Commission's finding of abuse by restricting parallel imports into Sweden.
However, it reversed the finding of abuse by restricting parallel imports into Denmark and Norway on the basis of lack of evidence that the deregistrations could have had such an effect in those countries.