{"title":"Generics (paroxetine), or the new unbearable lightness of patents in competition law","authors":"Patrick Actis Perinetto","doi":"10.1080/17441056.2021.1916212","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Generics represents the first instance in which the CJEU analysed the contentious pay-for-delay cases. The Court had to take position on the interplay between IPRs and competition law as well as on potential competition, on unlawful competition and on the general features of the competition law assessment. The answers provided are problematic in many respects. In particular, they risk to undermine the essence of the IPRs, by excluding any relevance of their validity within the competition law assessment. Following an illustration of the case-law concerning the relationship between competition and patent laws and a description of the relevant parts of Generics, this paper aims at discussing the reasons why the Court’s reasoning is hard to reconcile with (i) its own case-law concerning the application of regulatory provisions and of IPRs; (ii) the required assessment of the counterfactual and (iii) the relevance of only lawful competition within the competition law assessment.","PeriodicalId":52118,"journal":{"name":"European Competition Journal","volume":"17 1","pages":"437 - 472"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-04-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/17441056.2021.1916212","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Competition Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/17441056.2021.1916212","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
ABSTRACT Generics represents the first instance in which the CJEU analysed the contentious pay-for-delay cases. The Court had to take position on the interplay between IPRs and competition law as well as on potential competition, on unlawful competition and on the general features of the competition law assessment. The answers provided are problematic in many respects. In particular, they risk to undermine the essence of the IPRs, by excluding any relevance of their validity within the competition law assessment. Following an illustration of the case-law concerning the relationship between competition and patent laws and a description of the relevant parts of Generics, this paper aims at discussing the reasons why the Court’s reasoning is hard to reconcile with (i) its own case-law concerning the application of regulatory provisions and of IPRs; (ii) the required assessment of the counterfactual and (iii) the relevance of only lawful competition within the competition law assessment.
期刊介绍:
The European Competition Journal publishes outstanding scholarly articles relating to European competition law and economics. Its mission is to help foster learning and debate about how European competition law and policy can continue to develop in an economically rational way. Articles published in the Journal are subject to rigorous peer review by leading experts from around Europe. Topics include: -Vertical and Conglomerate Mergers -Enlargement of the Union - the ramifications for Competition Policy -Unilateral and Coordinated Effects in Merger Control -Modernisation of European Competition law -Cartels and Leniency.