Judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) of 12 December 2018 — Lupin v Commission
(Case T‑680/14)
(Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Market for perindopril, a medicinal product intended for the treatment of cardiovascular diseases, in its originator and generic versions — Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU — Patent dispute settlement agreement — Technology acquisition agreement — Restriction of competition by object — Balance between competition law and patent law — Fines)
1.      Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Adverse effect on competition — Criteria for assessment — Distinction between infringements by object and infringements by effect — Infringement by object — Sufficient degree of harmfulness — Assessment
(Art. 101(1) TFEU)
(see paras 75-82)
2.      Competition — EU rules — Substantive scope — Amicable agreement on patents — Included — Balancing of patent law and the competition rules
(Art. 101(1) TFEU; Council Regulation No 1/2003)
(see paras 84-102)
3.      Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Adverse effect on competition — Amicable agreement on patents — Agreement concluded between an originator company and a generic medicine undertaking — Agreement containing clauses prohibiting patent challenges and clauses prohibiting the marketing of products — Inducive reverse payment received by the generic medicine undertaking — Restriction by object
(Art. 101(1) TFEU)
(see paras 106-126)
4.      Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Adverse effect on competition — Ancillary restriction — Concept — Restriction necessary to the implementation of a main operation which is not anti-competitive — Main operation constituting a restriction of competition by object — Ancillary restraints doctrine inapplicable in the presence of an inducive reverse payment
(Art. 101(1) TFEU)
(see paras 135-144)
5.      Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Adverse effect on competition — Amicable agreement on patents — Agreement concluded between an originator company and a generic medicine undertaking — Agreement containing clauses prohibiting patent challenges and clauses prohibiting the marketing of products — Side deal providing for a transfer of value to the generic undertaking — Classification as an inducive reverse payment — Conditions
(Art. 101(1) TFEU)
(see paras 153-174)
6.      Action for annulment — Purpose — Decision based on several pillars of reasoning, each sufficient to justify the operative part — Annulment of such a decision — Conditions
(Art. 263 TFEU)
(see paras 251-255)
7.      Fundamental rights — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Principle that offences and penalties must have a proper legal basis — Scope — Foreseeability of the infringing nature of the penalised conduct — Patent dispute settlement agreement between an originator company and a generic undertaking — Agreement contrary to competition law — Originator company which could not have been unaware of the anti-competitive nature of its conduct
(Art. 101(1) TFEU; Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 49(1))
(see paras 272-287)
8.      Competition — Fines — Amount — Determination — Determination of the basic amount — Methodology established by the Guidelines not applied — Breach of the principle of equal treatment — None
(Art. 101(1) TFEU; Council Regulation No 1/2003, Art. 23(2); Commission Notice 2006/C 210/02, points 13 and 37)
(see paras 293-315)
9.      Competition — Fines — Amount — Determination — Methodology established by the Guidelines not applied — Calculation method — Deterrent effect of the fine — Need to fix an amount greater than the benefit derived from the infringement
(Art. 101(1) TFEU; Council Regulation No 1/2003, Art. 23; Commission Notice 2006/C 210/02, point 37)
(see paras 334-350, 363-396)
Re
Application under Article 263 TFEU for partial annulment of Commission Decision C(2014) 4955 final of 9 July 2014 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 and Article 102 TFEU [Case AT.39612 — Perindopril (Servier)] in so far as it concerns the applicant, and, in the alternative, for annulment or reduction of the fine imposed on the applicant by that decision.
Operative part
The Court:
1.
Dismisses the action.
2.
Orders Lupin Ltd to pay the costs.