The Dongfeng Nissan Case and the Gaps of China’s Competition Law Regime in Tackling Vertical Restraints
The recent Dongfeng Nissan Case shed some interesting lights on the status of vertical restraints rules in China, three years after China’s Anti-Monopoly Law (AML) became effective in August 2008. Currently, China’s competition law regime is still insufficiently equipped to assess and deal with vertical restraints, in spite of frequent complaints on alleged anticompetitive vertical restraints in the Chinese market.
For example, car manufacturers in China typically prohibit authorized car parts suppliers from selling genuine car parts to independent repairers or distributors. Genuine car parts are often exclusively distributed through authorized car dealers, which both sell new cars and [...]
U.S. FTC Scrutinizes Interplay Between Authorized Generics and Patent Settlements
The U.S. Federal Trade Commission has recently released two reports relating to the pharmaceutical industry. A significant theme in both reports is a concern that brand name pharmaceutical companies are using the threat of launching an authorized generic to make deals that delay generic entry. These reports shine a spotlight on the interplay between authorized generics and pharmaceutical patent settlements, and indicate strong FTC opposition to a practice that has never been found unlawful.
Report on Authorized Generics
On August 31, the FTC issued its final report analyzing the competitive significance of authorized generics. In the U.S., generic pharmaceutical products are typically sold b [...]
German FCO allows installment payment of cartel fine in mills cartel case
On October 25, 2011, the Federal Cartel Office (“FCO”) fined mills company VK Mühlen AG in the amount of € 23.8 million for price fixing and customer and market allocation with competitors regarding the sale of flour in Germany. In addition, the FCO found that the participants coordinated capacity reductions. This has been the FCO’s first fine in the ongoing and very broad mills cartel proceedings. According to the FCO, further 40 companies are subject to the investigation.
It seems that VK Mühlen AG fully cooperated with the FCO during the investigation under the leniency program and could thus secure a fine reduction. In addition, the company agreed to a settlement with the [...]
How to deal with Chinese State-owned Enterprises under the EUMR?
On 13 September, the Commission published its decision of 31 March 2011 in China National Bluestar/Elkem. After DSM/Sinochem/JV (decision of 10 May but published in June), this was the second published decision which dealt in some detail with the question how to treat Chinese State-owned Enterprises or SOEs under the EUMR. The question has both procedural and substantive implications.
Procedurally, the question is whether the revenues of other SOEs should be taken into account when calculating the revenues of the SOE involved in the transaction. From a substantive perspective, the Commission may need to analyze competitive effects of a combination of a company with an SOE, taking into acc [...]
Unlimited jurisdiction: the end of a misnomer?
The past decade has seen a flurry of articles published trying to make sense of the degree of control that the EU Courts exercise on complex economic reasoning. By contrast, much less has been written about the Courts’ unlimited jurisdiction on fines, which allows them to increase or decrease the financial sanctions imposed by the Commission (See Article 261 TFEU and Article 31 of Regulation No 1/2003). This is probably due to the fact that for the past 50 years, such unlimited jurisdiction has been living a quiet life indeed. Over this period – and especially during the last three decades – the EU Courts have wielded this powerful tool with great caution, or at least with significan [...]
UK Pubs And Greek Decoders – The Implications Of The Premier League Case For The Dissemination Of Digital Content
The European Court of Justice is expected to render its judgment in Premier League v QC Leisure in the next few months. At the heart of the case, lies the question whether licensing of intangible media content in one EU Member States exhausts the rights to that content across the EU. The answer of the Court of Justice will have important implications beyond the case at hand.
Advocate General Kokott rendered her opinion on the case on February 3, 2011. She proposes that the licensing of intangible content should be subject to exhaustion in the same way as the sale of physical products. If upheld, that conclusion would have serious repercussions for the licensing of all intangible conten [...]
