Apresentação

Este é um informativo diário que traz para o(a) leitor (a) notícias e casos de defesa da concorrência das principais jurisdições antitruste do mundo (CADE, FTC, Comissão Europeia, CMA etc).

Notícias

Cade realizou sessão de distribuição nesta quarta-feira (30/10)

Um item foi distribuído entre os membros do Tribunal Administrativo

Publicado em 31/10/2024 14h23

OConselho Administrativo de Defesa Econômica (Cade) realizou, nesta quarta-feira (30/10), a 317ª Sessão Ordinária de Distribuição. Nas sessões de distribuição, os casos em análise na autarquia são encaminhados para um conselheiro relator, designado por sorteio.

Confira abaixo os caso sorteado:

1. Processo Administrativo nº 08012.008859/2009-86 (Apartado de Acesso restrito nº 08700.001752/2019-21)

Representante: José Antonio Machado Reguffe.

Representados(as): 3 Vias Comércio de Derivados de Petroleo Ltda, A J Comércio de Combustíveis e Derivados Ltda, Águas Claras Posto de Serviços Ltda, AM Comercial de Combustíveis Ltda, Auto Posto BR 060 Ltda, Auto Posto Ceilândia Norte Ltda, Auto Posto Céu Azul Ltda, Auto Posto Cidade Ocidental Ltda, Auto Posto Dom Vital Ltda, Auto Posto Dom Vital II Ltda, Auto Posto Dom Vital III Ltda, Auto Posto Eixinho Ltda, Auto Posto Esplanada Ltda, Auto Posto G Sul Ltda, Auto Posto JB Ltda, Auto Posto JJ Júnior Ltda, Auto Posto JPC Derivados de Petróleo Ltda, Auto Posto JR Ltda, Auto Posto Juraci Junior Ltda, Auto Posto Lazzat Ltda, Auto Posto Millennium 2000 Ltda, Auto Posto Morada dos Nobres Ltda, Auto Posto NM 16 Ltda, Auto Posto Original Brasília 409 Derivados de Petróleo Ltda, Auto Posto Original Brasília 414 Derivados de Petróleo Ltda, Auto Posto Original Brasília Derivados de Petróleo Ltda, Auto Posto Original Colônia Agrícola Samambaia Derivados de Petróleo Ltda, Auto Posto Original Derivados de Petróleo Ltda, Auto Posto Park JK Ltda, Auto Posto Pessoa Ltda, Auto Posto São Judas Tadeu Ltda, Auto Posto São Marcos Ltda, Auto Posto SOF Norte Ltda, Auto Posto Tanque de Outro Ltda, Auto Posto Z+Z 307 Norte Ltda, Auto Shopping Derivados de Petróleo Ltda, Bracodel – Brazlândia Comércio de Petróleo e Derivados Ltda, Brasal Combustíveis Ltda, Braspetro Comércio de Combustíveis Ltda, Cascol Combustíveis para Veículos Ltda, Comercial de Combustíveis MAM Ltda, Correa I Combustíveis Ltda, Correa II PL Combustíveis Ltda, Disbrave Combustíveis Ltda, Dom Bosco Auto Posto Ltda, Eixinho L 212 Norte Comércio de Combustíveis e Derivados Ltda, Estação de Combustíveis Fênix Ltda, Fratelli Posto de Combustíveis Ltda, Fujichima Comércio de Derivados de Petróleo Ltda, G3 Auto Posto Ltda, Gas & Oil – Comércio de Combustíveis Ltda, Goes Combustíveis Lubrificantes e GLP Ltda, Ipiranga Produtos de Petróleo S/A, J Pessoa Derivados de Petroleo Ltda, Jarjour Veículos e Petróleo Ltda, JB Postos e Serviços Ltda, Jobral Comercial de Combustíveis Ltda, Lago Azul Derivados de Petróleo Ltda, Líder Posto de Serviço Ltda, LR Comércio de Produtos e Derivados de Petróleo Ltda, LRI Comércio de Produtos e Derivados de Petróleo Ltda – Disbrave Valparaíso Ltda, Maximo Comércio de Derivados de Petróleo Ltda, Nenen´s Chopp Comércio Varejista de Combustíveis, Indústria e Agropecuária Ltda, Oliveira Comércio de Derivados de Petróleo Ltda, Paranã Comércio de Combustíveis e Lubrificantes Ltda, Paranã de Dentro Comércio de Combustíveis e Lubrificantes Ltda, Paranã do Meio Comércio de Combustíveis e Lubrificantes Ltda, Petro Rios Comércio Derivados de Petróleo Ltda, Petrobrás Distribuidora S/A, Petroil Combustíveis Ltda, Posto Central Park Derivados de Petróleo Ltda, Posto de Combustíveis Garantia Ltda, Posto de Gasolina dos Anões Ltda, Posto de Petroleo Samambaia Ltda, Posto Disbrave Imperial Ltda, Posto Disbrave Lago Norte Ltda, Posto Disbrave Noroeste Ltda, Posto Disbrave SIA Ltda, Posto Disbrave Sobradinho Ltda, Posto e Restaurante São Paulo Ltda (Posto Central Eireli), Posto Estrada Park Ltda, Posto Fratelli Ocidental Ltda, Posto Park Santa Maria Derivados de Petróleo Ltda, Posto Park Taguatinga Derivados de Petróleo Ltda, Posto Parque Eldorado Derivados de Petróleo Ltda, Posto QNO 01 Ltda, Posto São Roque Ltda, Posto Sobradinho Ltda, Prado & Souza Comércio Derivados de Petróleo Ltda, Raízen Combustíveis S/A, Rota 020 Combustíveis Ltda, São Bernardo Serviços Automotivos Ltda, São João Postos de Abastecimento e Serviços Ltda, São Roque Comercio Varejista de Combustiveis Ltda, Sariedyn Combustíveis, Lubrificantes e Reparação Ltda, Serv Car Derivados de Petróleo Ltda, Sindicato do Comércio Varejista de Combustíveis Automotivos e de Lubrificantes do Distrito Federal, So Car Derivados de Petróleo Ltda, Sol Comércio de Combustíveis Ltda, Valparaíso Representação Comercial de Combustíveis Ltda, Verde Amarelo Posto de Serviço Ltda, VR Combustíveis Ltda, Adão do Nascimento Pereira, Adeilza Silva Santana, Alexandre Bristot Borges, Alexandre Correa de Oliveira, Alsene Beserra da Silva, André Rodrigues Toledo, Antônio José Matias de Souza, Braz Alves de Moura, Carlos Alberto Recch, Celso de Paula e Silva Filho, Cláudio José Simm, Cleison Silva dos Santos, Daniel Alves de Oliveira, Divino Gomes de Souza, Dorival Modesto Filho, Elson Cascão II, Fábio Kasuo Fujichima, Filippe Antonelli Santana, Flávia Carvalho Britto de Goes, Francisco Adriano Alves de Paula, Harlande Martins da Silva, Ilson Moreira de Andrade, Isnard Montenegro de Queiroz Neto, Ivan Ornelas Lara, José Aquino Neto, José Aristides de Moura, José Carlos Ulhôa Fonseca, Juraci Pessoa de Carvalho Júnior, Luiz Cláudio Caseira Sanches, Marc de Melo Lima, Marcello Dorneles Cordeiro, Marco Antônio Modesto, Marcos Pereira Lombardi, Maria Tereza Pontes Ornelas Lara, Odilon Roberto Prado de Souza, Paula Martins Pereira Trindade, Raphael Marques de Souza Matias, Ricardo Luiz Santos Porto, Rivanaldo Gomes de Araújo, Roberto Jardim, Ronaldo Marcos Corbal, Ulisses Canhedo Azevedo, Valdeni Duques de Oliveira, Valnei Martins dos Santos, Vicente de Paulo Fernandes Caixeta e Victor Guimarães Batista Ramos. 

Relator: conselheiro Carlos Jacques

Commission fines Teva €462.6 million over misuse of the patent system and disparagement to delay rival multiple sclerosis medicine

The European Commission has fined Teva €462.6 million for abusing its dominant position to delay competition to its blockbuster medicine for the treatment of multiple sclerosis, Copaxone. The Commission found that Teva artificially extended the patent protection of Copaxone and systematically spread misleading information about a competing product to hinder its market entry and uptake.

The infringements

Teva is a global pharmaceutical company operating through several subsidiaries in the European Economic Area. Its blockbuster medicine, Copaxone, is widely used for the treatment of multiple sclerosis and contains the active pharmaceutical ingredient glatiramer acetate, over which Teva held a basic patent until 2015.

The Commission’s investigation found that Teva abused its dominant position in the markets for glatiramer acetate in Belgium, Czechia, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland and Spain.

Teva’s abusive conduct had the overall objective of delaying competition and artificially prolonging the exclusivity of Copaxone by hindering the market entry and uptake of competing, cheaper glatiramer acetate medicines. In particular, the Commission found that Teva:

• Misused patent procedures. When its patent protecting glatiramer acetate was about to expire, Teva artificially extended Copaxone’s patent protection by misusing the European Patent Office’s (“EPO”) rules and procedures on divisional patents. Divisional patents derive from an earlier ‘parent’ patent application and share similar content, but may focus on different aspects of the invention and are treated independently when it comes to assessing their validity. In this specific case, Teva filed multiple divisional patent applications in a staggered way, creating a web of secondary patents aroundCopaxone focusing on the manufacturing process and the dosing regimen of glatiramer acetate. Rivals challenged these patents to clear the way to the market. Pending review by the EPO, Teva started enforcing these patents against competitors to obtain interim injunctions. When the patents seemed likely to be revoked, Teva strategically withdrew them, to avoid a formal invalidity ruling, which would have set a precedent threating other divisional patents to fall like dominos. By doing so, Teva forced competitors to repeatedly start new lengthy legal challenges. This tactic allowed Teva to artificially prolong legal uncertainty over its patents and, potentially, hinder the entry of competing glatiramer acetate medicines. All Teva’s divisional patents have now been annulled.
• Implemented a systematic disparagement campaign against a competing glatiramer acetate medicine for the treatment of multiple sclerosis, by spreading misleading information about its safety, efficacy and therapeutic equivalence with Copaxone. Teva did so despite the relevant health authorities having approved the competing medicine and confirmed its safety, efficacy and therapeutic equivalence with Copaxone. Teva’s disparagement campaign targeted key stakeholders, including doctors and national decision-makers for pricing and reimbursement of medicines, with the objective of slowing down or blocking the entry of its rival product in several Member States.

Today’s decision concludes that Teva’s abuses were complementary and together amounted to a single and continuous infringement of Article 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (‘TFEU’), which prohibits the abuse of a dominant position. This is the first time the Commission imposes a fine in relation to these two types of practices.

Teva’s conduct, which lasted between 4 and 9 years depending on the Member State, may have prevented list prices to decrease, with a negative impact on public health budgets. This is confirmed by the fact that, once the rival product entered the market, the list prices decreased by up to 80%, leading to significant savings for health systems.  

A statement by Executive Vice-President Margrethe Vestager, in charge of competition policy, is available here.

Fine

The fine was set on the basis of the Commission’s 2006 Guidelines on fines (see press release and MEMO).

In setting the level of the fine, the Commission took into account the gravity and duration of the infringements as well as the value of Teva’s sales relating to the latter.

The Commission has concluded that the total amount of the fine of €462.6 million is proportionate and is necessary to achieve deterrence.

Background

Following unannounced inspections at the premises of several Teva subsidiaries in October 2019, the Commission opened proceedings in March 2021 against Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited and Teva Pharmaceuticals Europe BV. In October 2022, the Commission sent the parties a Statement of Objections.

This is the second Commission decision about disparagement campaigns. In July 2024, the Commission accepted commitments by Vifor addressing the Commission’s preliminary concerns that the pharmaceutical company could have engaged in a potentially anticompetitive disparagement campaign.

Article 102 of the TFEU prohibits the abuse of a dominant position that may affect trade within the EU and prevent or restrict competition. The implementation of this provision is defined in Regulation No 1/2003.

Fines imposed on companies found in breach of EU antitrust rules are paid into the general EU budget. These proceeds are not earmarked for particular expenses, but Member States’ contributions to the EU budget for the following year are reduced accordingly. The fines therefore help to finance the EU and reduce the burden for taxpayers.

In the decision, the Commission also relied on documents from Teva’s in-house lawyers who were involved in the design of its abusive strategy to protect Copaxone. In-house lawyer communications are not privileged under EU law.

Action for damages

Any person or company affected by anticompetitive behaviour as described in this case may bring the matter before the courts of the Member States and seek damages. The case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union and Council Regulation No 1/2003 both confirm that in cases before national courts, a Commission decision that has become final constitutes binding proof that the behaviour took place and was illegal. Even though the Commission has fined the company concerned, damages may be awarded by national courts without being reduced on account of the Commission fine.

The Antitrust Damages Directive makes it easier for victims of anticompetitive practices to obtain damages. More information on antitrust damages actions, including a practical guide on how to quantify antitrust harm, is available here.

Whistleblower tool

The Commission has set up by a tool to make it easier for individuals to alert it about anticompetitive behaviour while maintaining their anonymity. The tool protects whistleblowers’ anonymity through a specifically designed encrypted messaging system that allows two-way communications. The tool is accessible via this link.

For More Information

More information on this case will be available under the case number AT.40588 in the public case register on the Commission’s competition website, once confidentiality issues have been dealt with.

Square Asset Management notifica a aquisição do controlo exclusivo sobre a Alegro Montijo e a sua subsidiária Brafero.

Ficha do processo

Ficha do processo

AdC adotou uma decisão de não oposição na operação de concentração 57/2024 – ENGIE / Ativos TrustEnergy.

Em 30 de outubro de 2024, o Conselho de Administração da Autoridade da Concorrência, no uso da competência que lhe é conferida pela alínea d) do n.º 1 do artigo 19.º dos Estatutos, aprovados pelo Decreto-Lei n.º 125/2014, de 18 de agosto, adota uma decisão de não oposição à operação de concentração notificada, nos termos da alínea b) do n.º 1 do artigo 50.º da Lei da Concorrência, uma vez que a mesma não é suscetível de criar entraves significativos à concorrência efetiva no mercado nacional ou em parte substancial deste.

Ficha do processo

Ficha do processo

Atos de concentração – Ingressos

CADE

Atos de concentração – Decisões

CMA

Topps Tiles / CTD Tiles (certain assets) merger inquiry

• The CMA is investigating the completed acquisition by Topps Tiles Plc of certain assets of Tildist Realisations Limited (formerly CTD Tiles Limited).
  • Updated: 31 October 2024