The judgment of the Court of Justice in Perindopril (Servier), case AT.39612: a comment on the KRKA licensing agreement,

- The settlement agreement between Servier and KRKA did not involve a monetary transfer as inducement to delay entry but a licence to enter markets earlier than what would have happened in the counterfactual (no agreement). - The Commission found that this agreement involved a restriction by object. - The GC found, among other, that the Commission had not established the existence of an inducement from Servier for KRKA to withdraw from the market so that it could not be characterized as a restriction by object; whereas the ECJ essentially followed the Commission and confirmed a restriction by object. - In our view, even if inducing delay of entry in some markets, such agreements may allow earlier entry in others, such that they should not be treated as restriction by object.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Journal of European Competition Law & Practice
Published
2024-12-01
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1093/jeclap/lpaf004
Primary Topic
Taxation and Legal Issues
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

The judgment of the Court of Justice in Perindopril (Servier), case AT.39612: a comment on the KRKA licensing agreement,

Georges Siotis, Damien Neven
Journal of European Competition Law & Practice
Taxation and Legal Issues
article

The judgment of the Court of Justice in Perindopril (Servier), case AT.39612: a comment on the KRKA licensing agreement,

Georges Siotis, Damien Neven
article en

Abstract

- The settlement agreement between Servier and KRKA did not involve a monetary transfer as inducement to delay entry but a licence to enter markets earlier than what would have happened in the counterfactual (no agreement). - The Commission found that this agreement involved a restriction by object. - The GC found, among other, that the Commission had not established the existence of an inducement from Servier for KRKA to withdraw from the market so that it could not be characterized as a restriction by object; whereas the ECJ essentially followed the Commission and confirmed a restriction by object. - In our view, even if inducing delay of entry in some markets, such agreements may allow earlier entry in others, such that they should not be treated as restriction by object.

Journal of European Competition Law & PracticeVol. 15(8)
Comunidad de Madrid (ES), Universidad Carlos III de Madrid (ES), Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies (CH)
Peace, Justice and strong institutions
Openalex Percentile: Top 56%
Taxation and Legal Issues
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.

The judgment of the Court of Justice in Perindopril (Servier), case AT.39612: a comment on the KRKA licensing agreement, — Georges Siotis, Damien Neven · Journal of European Competition Law & Practice (2024) | TGRS Research Map | TGRS