Bio-Science Law Review includes Sophie Lawrance and Sean-Paul Brankin’s article

CAT’s Paroxetine ‘pay-for-delay’ judgment: market definition confusion


Competition law experts Sophie Lawrance and Sean-Paul Brankin review the Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) ruling on the Paroxetine “pay-for-delay” case, where the tribunal used a new approach to market definition.

The 10 May 2021 supplementary judgment of the CAT in the Paroxetine case upheld the EU approach to so-called ‘pay-for-delay’ patent settlements as well as confirming the 2016 infringement decision reached by the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA). It also reduced the fines imposed on the parties.

Notably, the CAT appears to identify two different periods for market definition: before the emergence of potential generic competition (a wider market definition covering all SSRI anti-depressants), and after (a market definition limited to paroxetine).

Read the full article on The CLIP Board, download the PDF here, or head to Bio-Science Law Review published by Lawtext Publishing Limited.

For more information on the work we do, see our competition litigation and competition advice & investigations expertise pages.

Related Articles