One of the more intriguing Opinions to be given by an Advocate General recently came out in late September (Case C-179/16, F. Hoffmann-La Roche and Others v Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato (AGCM), Opinion of Advocate General Saugmandsgaard Øe delivered on 21 September 2017).
It is full of interesting observations on market definition in the pharma sector, the distinction between object and effect, how to look at the question of competition between licensors and licensees under the Technology Transfer Regulation, and how to assess whether a restriction of competition exists. We will be writing about these (and more) a bit later, but thought that in the meantime those of you who are particularly interested in Life Sciences might want to take a look at our sister blog On The Pulse. A short article has been postedthere which briefly summarises the Advocate General’s views on whether there is a duty on pharma companies under Article 101 not to agree to provide information which is objectively misleading to the regulatory authorities. In this instance the information found to be misleading related to the relative safety of two products, one of which was authorised to treat ophthalmic conditions and one of which was not, but which was being prescribed off-label – so quite unusual circumstances (although perhaps a situation that could be expected to arise more in future, as second, third and fourth medical uses become the norm).
You may remember that a similar legal issue has already been discussed under Article 102 in theAstraZeneca case (see here and here) where dominant companies were found to be subject to a duty to act transparently when dealing with the patent authorities. The extent of the duty was somewhat modified by the CJEU, but the obligation to provide all relevant information, and to clarify information which subsequently turns out to be incorrect, still exists. It will be interesting to see whether the CJEU follows the Advocate General in his approach to identifying a similar duty under Article 101, and whether the Advocate General’s expansive reading of when information may be misleading is approved by the Court.