ADVERTISEMENT



Google       

Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Intellectual Property Law Blogs -> IPKat

OR PHONE (866) 635-1838 for Bankruptcy Help, (866) 635-6190 for Divorce,
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense

Find a Local Lawyer

Bankruptcy (866) 635-1838
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402

Bookmark

Intellectual Property Law

: IPKat

Heartache for heartburn drugmaker, though court sweetens the bitter pill

By Johanna Gibson, David Pearce, Jeremy Phillips and Ilanah Simon.

ADVERTISEMENTS
If you're too busy to read all 920 paragraphs of Case T-321/05 AstraZeneca v Commission, delivered today by the General Court of the European Union, let the IPKat help you at least find out what all the fuss is about. Aided only by his native wit and his well-informed friend Stephanie Bodoni (Bloomberg), he can tell you that the day was one of sweetness and bitterness for drug company AstraZeneca.

This morning the European Union's second-highest court [that's the second-highest of two, unless you count the EU's Civil Service Tribunal] upheld the finding of the European Commission that AstraZeneca -- the UK's second-largest pharma company -- misled patent officials and flouted antitrust rules in order to keep a generic competitor off the market. However, the company s fine from 60 million euros to a mere 52.5 million euros [i.e. more or less the cost of buying a good footballer]. The product which AZ had so mischievously sought to keep to itself was Omeprazole, sold as Prilosec and Losec heartburn medicine (among other names).


AstraZeneca had challenged the European Commission's decision back in June 2005 to fine it for market abuse and misleading patent offices in Germany, Belgium, Denmark, Norway, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom, not to mention numerous courts, over Prilosec. While this finding remains unscathed, the General Court [correctly, in this Kat's view] reversed the Commission's finding that AstraZeneca breached EU rules by withdrawing market approvals for older versions of the medicine in Denmark and Norway, thus preventing market entry by generic producers and parallel importers.

The IPKat fancies that there will be an appeal by both sides to the Court of Justice, though this will not be immediate since it takes a long time to read 920 paragraphs, the soccer World Cup is still in full swing and the British interest in Wimbledon Fortnight is not yet ended.

Heartburn in cats here
The Commission's decision (Case COMP/A.37.507/F3 ? AstraZeneca) here
How the news was broken by Reuters, Wall Street Journal and the Financial Times

Full post as published by IPKat on July 01, 2010 (boomark / email).

Bloggers, promote your law blog by nominating your blog for inclusion in USLaw.com's Law Blog Directory and RSS Reader. Benefits described.
Related Law Articles

Lawsuits and Settlements

Related Searches

























































































































US Law
#1 Online Legal Resource













Your Blog Subscriptions
Subscribe to blogs

10,000+ Law Job Listings
Lawyer . Police . Paralegal . Etc
Earn a law-related degree
Are you the author of this blog? Adding USLaw.com to your Blogroll increases relevance. You qualify to display a USLaw Network badge.
Suggest changes to this blog's description or nominate another for inclusion. Register for updates.


Practice Area
Zip Code:

Contact a Lawyer Now!






0.0022 secs (from cache 11/04/26 20:19:15)