Team Metabolic Health
Teva described the EU regulator’s decision as “extreme, untested and factually unsupported.”
The European Commission has hit the world’s largest maker of generic drugs with a €462.6 million fine for breaching the bloc’s competition rules.
It is the first time in the history of the EU’s antitrust division that a company has been fined for misusing the EU patent system and systematically disparaging rivals.
In a statement posted to its website, Teva, an Israel-headquartered multinational, described the decision as being underpinned by “extreme, untested, and factually unsupported” legal theories. Noting that the company was “well prepared financially to mount a defense,” it said it would appeal the decision.
Credit: olrat/Adobe Stock
Teva described the EU regulator’s decision as “extreme, untested and factually unsupported.”
The European Commission has hit the world’s largest maker of generic drugs with a €462.6 million fine for breaching the bloc’s competition rules.
It is the first time in the history of the EU’s antitrust division that a company has been fined for misusing the EU patent system and systematically disparaging rivals.
In a statement posted to its website, Teva, an Israel-headquartered multinational, described the decision as being underpinned by “extreme, untested, and factually unsupported” legal theories. Noting that the company was “well prepared financially to mount a defense,” it said it would appeal the decision.
“Temu takes its obligations under the DSA seriously, continuously investing to strengthen our compliance system and safeguard consumer interests on our platform,” the company added in a statement sent to Law.com International. “We will cooperate fully with regulators to support our shared goal of a safe, trusted marketplace for consumers.”
According to Brussels officials, the Israeli drugmaker abused its dominant position in Belgium, Czechia, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland and Spain with the goal of slowing down competition and artificially extending the exclusivity of its prize multiple sclerosis drug Copaxone. The company did this, officials said, by obstructing the market entry and the uptake of competing, lower-cost medicines that relied on the same active ingredient as Copaxone.
The EU’s Luxembourg-based General Court will rule on Teva’s appeal, which could take up to two years. Jonas Koponen, a partner in Cooley’s Brussels office, told Law.com International that patent, regulatory and marketing strategies are “normal and legitimate means of competition.” He said the EU court had made clear in its previous rulings that dominant firms are allowed to resort to “aggressive strategies,” as long as they are based on “competition on the merits” and not prone to foreclose rivals.
“If this decision is appealed, a key question for the Court would be to determine whether the conduct that the Commission found abusive amounts to “competition on the merits” in the specific context of the pharma sector,” he said. “But this is a nebulous notion, and it would be important for the Court to clarify when legitimate business strategies ‘cross the line’—a blurred line risks stifling legitimate and healthy competition.”
Another large company also has ended up in the EU’s crosshairs: EU officials have opened an investigation against Temu under the bloc’s Digital Services Act over concerns that the popular Chinese online retail platform sold illegal products and designed the service in an addictive way.
Over the next few months, the EU regulator will also look into the systems used by Temu to recommend purchases to users, as well as the data access the company has offered researchers. If Brussels officials find the company has indeed breached the bloc’s online safety law, Temu could face a fine of up to to 6% of its worldwide annual turnover.
Credit: law.com