AstraZeneca fine looks fine, says AG Mazák

Of the major news sources, only Reuters and Bloomberg took the trouble to post any news concerning the Advocate General Jan Mazák's Opinion today that the 52.5 million euro (£41.8 million) fine which the European Commission imposed on AstraZeneca for misleading patent regulators more than a decade ago in a bid to block competition to its ulcer drug Losec. There wasn't even a Curia press release. The Commission's fine was upheld by the General Court in July 2010 in a 920-paragraph blockbuster, Case T-321/05, noted by the IPKat here.

According to the Reuters report
"The AstraZeneca case prompted EU antitrust enforcers to start an inquiry into the pharmaceutical sector in early 2008, which resulted in a critical report on "pay-for-delay" deals -- when patented drug makers pay generics makers to hang fire - and subsequent raids on several drug makers. However, the Commission scrapped such investigations into AstraZeneca and Swiss peer Nycomed in March this year after failing to find evidence that the companies had undertaken such deals. It also dropped a similar probe into GlaxoSmithKline after a U.S. rival Synthon withdrew its complaint".
 The Advocate General's 151-paragraph Opinion in Case C‑457/10 P AstraZeneca AB and AstraZeneca plc v European Commission can be read in full here,

The IPKat can't help admire the zeal and zest with which AstraZeneca has fought its corner, first on the question of liability and then on the quantum of the fine.
AstraZeneca fine looks fine, says AG Mazák AstraZeneca fine looks fine, says AG Mazák Reviewed by Jeremy on Tuesday, May 15, 2012 Rating: 5

No comments:

All comments must be moderated by a member of the IPKat team before they appear on the blog. Comments will not be allowed if the contravene the IPKat policy that readers' comments should not be obscene or defamatory; they should not consist of ad hominem attacks on members of the blog team or other comment-posters and they should make a constructive contribution to the discussion of the post on which they purport to comment.

It is also the IPKat policy that comments should not be made completely anonymously, and users should use a consistent name or pseudonym (which should not itself be defamatory or obscene, or that of another real person), either in the "identity" field, or at the beginning of the comment. Current practice is to, however, allow a limited number of comments that contravene this policy, provided that the comment has a high degree of relevance and the comment chain does not become too difficult to follow.

Learn more here:

Powered by Blogger.