Does Amazon comply with EU competition law? Some initial thoughts on the new Commission investigation

A few days ago the European Commission opened a preliminary investigation against Amazon to assess whether the American company is engaging in anticompetitive conducts. The Commission is concerned by the dual role of Amazon, which is at the same time owner of the biggest online market place and a seller of its private label products therein. Since Amazon obtains a significant amount of data from the transactions occurring on its market place, DG Comp suspects that Amazon might be using this information to better tailor its private label offer and eventually exclude the other retailers active on the market place. Continue reading “Does Amazon comply with EU competition law? Some initial thoughts on the new Commission investigation”

Do data generated by connected cars raise antitrust risks?

In these days the European Commission is particularly active in understanding the possible antitrust impact of data-related conducts. In particular, from a recent policy document published by the Commission and from statements released by DG Comp´s official, it emerges that data generated by automated and connected cars might be considered an “essential facility” from a competition law perspective, at least in the early stage of the industry development, with the consequence that access to these data could not be refused to third parties. Consequently, manufacturers of automated and connected cars which refuse to license these data under fair terms to providers of cars-related services (i.e.: insurers, repairers, leasing companies) might be in breach of article 102 TFEU.

Continue reading “Do data generated by connected cars raise antitrust risks?”

Blockchain and antitrust: why companies should be cautious

Over the last months blockchain and bitcoin have been the subject of lively public discussions on whether blockchain is the technology of the future and cryptocurrencies are going to be just a speculative phenomenon or something more. However, little has been said so far on blockchain from an antitrust perspective, probably because new technologies require some time to be digested and elaborated by competition authorities. Continue reading “Blockchain and antitrust: why companies should be cautious”

Is this a monopoly? Sailing through IP and competition law

Today we talk about IP, antitrust and sailing. Which is a great occasion to escape the files on your desk and envision yourself enjoying warm winds on emerald water.

Sailing, besides being a wonderful way to stay in touch with nature, is an Olympic discipline sailed on different types of boats: at the moment, the official “Olympic Classes” are Laser, Laser Radial, 49er, 49erFX, RS:X, Nacra 17, 470 and Finn. Olympic Classes are selected by World Sailing, the governing body of this sport, and they are subject (in theory) to periodic review. As a consequence, over the years even glorious boats like Star – which has been part of the Olympic program since its initial editions – have been replaced by fancier and foiling ones.

Continue reading “Is this a monopoly? Sailing through IP and competition law”

SEP licensing and competition law: DOJ and European Commission bless a new “patent-friendly” approach

Recently, the debate on the applicability of competition law to the licensing of standard-essential patents (SEPs) has come to a turning point. Indeed, both the US Department of Justice (DOJ) and the European Commission are making an attempt to provide a final answer to the following questions:

1) should the conduct of SEP-holders be subject to the application of competition law?

2) should standard-setting organisations (SSO) provide guidance on the meaning of “fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory” terms (FRAND), or would that guidance amount to a price-fixing cartel?

Continue reading “SEP licensing and competition law: DOJ and European Commission bless a new “patent-friendly” approach”

Recent developments on vexatious litigation and misuse of regulatory procedures under EU competition law

There are some forms of abuse of dominant position which raise significant issues in terms of compliance with the principle of legal certainty. Among such behaviours we can surely include conducts like “vexatious litigation” and “misuse of regulatory procedures” , categories developed by courts and not explicitly found in statutes. When competition authorities launch an investigation based on these conducts, companies have good reasons to get worried.

A new investigation in Italy – ICA v. Telecom Italia

Over the past years, the number of cases based on the “abuse of law” concept have risen, and last week the Italian Competition Authority (ICA) opened a new investigation based on this concept. According to the ICA, Telecom Italia would have abused its dominant position under article 102 TFEU by means of vexatious litigation, misuse of regulatory procedures, margin squeeze and lock-in strategies on the national wholesale market for the access to the ultra-broadband network and on the retail market for the supply of ultra-broadband telecommunication services. The ICA considered Telecom Italia dominant both at wholesale (it owns around 95% of the facilities) and retail level (with a market share of 45,9%).

Continue reading “Recent developments on vexatious litigation and misuse of regulatory procedures under EU competition law”

High Court rules in favour of the SEP holder and narrows the scope of competition law defence in Unwired Planet vs. Huawei

On 5 April 2017 the High Court of Justice of England and Wales (Hon. Justice Birss) issued its long awaited judgment in the patent dispute between Unwired Planet and Huawei. The ruling is of high relevance, as it is the first decision adopted by a judge in the UK after the CJEU’s judgment in Huawei.

The facts

The trial began in March 2014 when Unwired Planet sued Google, Huawei and Samsung for infringement of five SEPs (and one non-essential patent). Later, Unwired Planet settled with Google and Samsung. Continue reading “High Court rules in favour of the SEP holder and narrows the scope of competition law defence in Unwired Planet vs. Huawei”

Competition law in the pharmaceutical sector: Aspen fined for excessive pricing in Italy

drugs

The Italian Competition Authority (“ICA”) has recently found that Aspen Pharmacare had increased the prices for some of its oncohematological drugs up to 1500% and imposed to the South African multinational a 5 million Euro fine for violation of art. 102, letter a) of the TFEU. Aspen has already communicated that it will appeal the decision.

Continue reading “Competition law in the pharmaceutical sector: Aspen fined for excessive pricing in Italy”