• Abstract and Figures
• Public Full-text

Antitrust AstraZeneca: the first abuse case in the pharmaceutical sector Niklas FAGERLUND and Søren Bo RASMUSSEN, Directorate-General Competition, unit B-2 1. Introduction by AZ before patent offices in Belgium, Denmark, Germany, the Netherlands, Norway and the United On 15 June 2005 the Commission adopted a deci- Kingdom and before national courts in Germany sion (‘Decision’) fining the Swedish company and Norway. AstraZeneca AB and the UK company Astra- Zeneca Plc (together ‘AZ’) 60 million euros due to The misleading information was provided by AZ their infringements of Article 82 of the EC Treaty in the context of its two rounds of applications and Article 54 of the EEA Agreement. (in June 1993 and December 1994) to several pat- ent offices within the EEA for extra protection for The infringements involve misuses by AZ of public omeprazole (the active substance in AZ’s product procedures and regulations in a number of EEA Losec) in the form of so-called supplementary states aimed at excluding generic firms and paral- protection certificates (SPCs). Under the SPC Reg- lel traders from competing against AZ’s anti-ulcer ulation the basic patent protection for active sub- product Losec. stances in medicines can be extended by a maxi- In 1979, Astra AB (currently AstraZeneca AB), a mum of five years. Swedish research based company, had filed pat- The Decision raises no objections to AZ’s incorrect ent applications in Europe in respect of omepra- interpretation of the relevant legislation. Therefore, zole (the active substance in Losec). Losec’s basic the proceedings and outcome in Hässle AB v. rati- patent protection therefore by and large expired opharm GmbH (2) concerning the interpretation of across Europe in 1999. Losec is one of the most the relevant provisions of the SPC Regulation are successful products in pharmaceutical history not decisive for the finding of an abuse in this case with annual sales reaching around six billion euros and any lack of clarity concerning the interpreta- towards the end of the 1990s. tion of the SPC Regulation cannot constitute an AZ’s first abuse involved misuses of the patent sys- objective justification for the behaviour. tem; or more specifically of a Council Regulation The Decision considers that the conduct did not 1 adopted in 1992 ( ) under which the basic patent constitute normal competition and that it cannot protection for pharmaceutical products can be be explained as the result of alleged errors or unau- extended (‘SPC Regulation’). The idea underlying thorised behaviour by patent agents and counsel the SPC Regulation is to compensate pharmaceu- acting on behalf of AZ. tical companies for the often long period which elapses between the start of the term of the basic 2.2. The effects of the infringement patent and the point in time when the product receives a market authorisation. The second abuse Through the misleading information in connec- concerned misuses of procedures relating to the tion with its SPC applications for omeprazole, AZ authorisation of the marketing of pharmaceutical obtained extra SPC protection in several coun- products. The fine takes into account that some tries. Such intellectual property protection consti- features of the abuses can be considered as novel. tutes the principal barrier to entry for generic ver- sions of an original medicine (in this case Losec). 2. The first infringement — misuse of Thereby, the entry of cheaper generic versions of the patent system Losec was delayed, entailing additional costs for health systems and consumers. 2.1. The infringement AZ’s competitors were forced to bring lengthy and costly litigation to invalidate AZ’s SPCs. In some The first infringement of Article 82 of the EC countries AZ was able to bring patent infringe- Treaty and Article 54 of the EEA Agreement con- ment proceedings against generic firms by invok- stitutes a single and continuous abuse and consists ing the SPCs it had obtained through its misleading of a pattern of misleading representations made representations. In addition, AZ’s conduct caused uncertainty, delays and disruption of generic firms’ (1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 1768/92 of 18 June 1992 concerning the creation of a supplementary protection preparations for market entry. certificate for medicinal products (OJ L 182, 2.7.1992, p.1). (2) Case C-127/00 Hässle, in particular paragraph 79. 54 Number 3 — Autumn 2005 Competition Policy Newsletter 2.3. The use of public procedures and AZ’s requests for the deregistration of its market ANTITRUST regulation to foreclose competition authorisation for Losec capsules in Denmark, Nor- way and Sweden combined with its withdrawal The Decision finds that the special responsibility from the market of Losec capsules and launch of of a dominant undertaking also covers the use of Losec MUPS tablets in those three countries. public procedures and regulations. The use of such procedures and regulations may be abusive in spe- A key purpose underlying the conduct was to cific circumstances where there is a clear intent to exclude competition from generic firms and par- foreclose competition on the part of a dominant allel traders. The Decision does not object to the company, in particular where the authorities or withdrawal of Losec capsules from the market bodies applying such procedures have little or no and/or the launch of the Losec tablets as such. The discretion. Such a regulatory context existed in core of the second abuse consists in the selective this case as the patent offices largely accepted the deregistration which removed the reference mar- data submitted by the SPC applicants at face value. ket authorisation on which generic firms and par- Moreover, limited information on applications for allel traders arguably needed to rely at the time to and grants of SPCs was available to the competi- enter and/or remain on the market. tors. AZ deregistered its market authorisation for Losec The Decision observes that the acquisition of a capsules selectively only in countries where it right may constitute an abuse. Behaviour in the thought this strategy would block or delay generic process leading up to the acquisition of a right market entry or parallel imports. may therefore also constitute an abuse. Consid- The Decision finds that through its conduct, AZ ering that AZ’s initial misleading representations sought to extend de facto the protection afforded were made well before the grant of the rights in by patents, SPCs and data exclusivity well beyond question, the finding of an abuse cannot affect the the period provided for in the applicable rules con- subject-matter of the said rights. sidered reasonable by the legislator. 2.4. The existence of other remedies (apart Patents, SPCs and data exclusivity are designed to from competition law) reward innovation, while the purpose of a mar- ket authorisation is not an entitlement to exclude The existence of other specific remedies cannot by competitors but the right to market a pharmaceu- itself exclude the application of Article 82 even if tical product. they may cover aspects of the exclusionary con- duct. The Decision finds that there is no reason to While the Decision does not contend that the pur- limit the applicability of competition law to situ- pose of a market authorisation is to facilitate entry ations where such conduct does not violate other of generic products, it states that in the specific laws and where there are no other remedies. The circumstances of this case, the deregistration of purpose of competition law is to sanction behav- a market authorisation may be an element of the iour with anticompetitive objects or effects. Such abuse. behaviour may also give rise to liability under The Decision finds that the conduct did not con- other laws regardless of any anticompetitive effects stitute standard practice at the time. It also finds it may have. Moreover, the scope of remedies that there were no objective justifications for the under patent laws is very limited in this case. There behaviour. For example, AZ’s requests for deregis- would be no sanctions apart from the annulment tration were not based on public health considera- of the SPCs. For example, no sanctions would be tions. Nor can the conduct find any justification in imposed against failed attempts to obtain SPCs the relevant pharmaceutical legislation in the light through misleading information. of the actual motives underlying the conduct. 3. The second infringement — misuse Nevertheless, the Decision observes that single acts involving the launch, withdrawal or requests of procedures relating to the for deregistration would not normally as such con- marketing of pharmaceutical stitute an abuse and that — due to changes in the products relevant EC pharmaceutical legislation — the sec- ond abuse cannot be repeated. 3.1. The infringement 3.2. The effects of the infringement The second infringement of Article 82 of the EC Treaty and Article 54 of the EEA Agreement con- Through its strategy, AZ aimed to prevent and in stitutes a single and continuous abuse (from 19 part succeeded in preventing the authorisation March 1998 until the end of 2000) consisting of of generic versions of Losec as well as excluding Number 3 — Autumn 2005 55 Antitrust parallel trade in Losec, artificially partitioning as the regulatory context including price regula- the internal market. Thereby, the entry of cheaper tion. The Decision finds that pharmaceutical com- generic and parallel imported versions of Losec panies offering therapeutically superior products was delayed, entailing additional costs for health (such as Losec) to the authorities are generally able systems and consumers. to extract higher reimbursable prices than those set for previous generations of less effective medi- 3.3. The use of government procedures and cines. entitlements as well as the relevance of The Decision also takes account of the relevant the regulatory context products’ characteristics and uses, non-price fac- The second abuse is not an abuse of intellectual tors relevant to the competition in pharmaceutical property rights.

Load more

  3

Copy Link