Ravi S. Mehta
-
Eligibility for sporting competitions caught in the cross-hairs of competition law
In a recent announcement, the European Commission got its skates on and launched an investigation into the rules of the International Skating Union (ISU) which preclude skaters from taking part in events which have not been approved by the ISU. The announcement is only preliminary and does not represent a statement of what may or… Continue reading
-
Arcadia v Visa revisited: the Court of Appeal takes a strict approach to limitation
Competition damages claims can be notoriously complex. According to the Court of Appeal, however, that is no reason to free them from the ordinary English rules of limitation – however strict those rules might be. Unlike the large majority of European limitation rules, where time starts running from the date of the victim’s knowledge, the… Continue reading
-
Of Megabytes and Men: the private use exception under the judicial lens and lessons for state aid claims
On 19 June 2015, the High Court allowed a claim for judicial review against the decision to introduce a narrow ‘private copying’ exception to the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (the “CDPA 1988”). The decision is of interest to EU and competition lawyers for two reasons: (1) its examination of the standard of review… Continue reading
-
“It’s too late baby, now it’s too late”: limitation, competition claims and knowledge
How much knowledge does a potential claimant need before time begins to run against a competition claim against a party alleged to have breached competition law? This was the key question addressed by Mr Justice Simon in the first case in which an English Court has had to consider the effect of s.32 of the… Continue reading
-
Avoiding the clinch: judicial respect for the rules inherent to sport
In a recent bout in the High Court, the specificity of sporting disputes once again came to the fore. In Bruce Baker v British Boxing Board of Control [2014] EWHC 2074 (QB), 25 June 2014, Sir David Eady was faced with the old chestnut of a request for a court to interfere with a national… Continue reading
-
“What’s in a Commission Decision?” and other lessons for national courts
In a decision of 13 February 2014, the Court of Justice of the European Union (“CJEU”) added a little gloss to an otherwise well-trodden path in relation to the binding aspects of a Commission Decision. For instance, it is well established that assessments made in recitals to a decision “are not in themselves capable of… Continue reading
-
To fight or not to fight: pharmaceutical patent settlements
On 19 April 2013, the OFT announced that it had issued a Statement of Objections following its investigation into patent litigation settlement agreements (PLSAs) in the pharmaceutical sector. The underlying factual complaint related to GlaxoSmithKline’s alleged conduct in defence of one of its blockbuster drugs, Seroxat, which is a prominent anti-depressant (paroxetine). The central allegation… Continue reading
-
Multi-speed Europe and the unitary patent: taking the first steps
A landmark recent judgment of the Grand Chamber of the CJEU was the first occasion on which the CJEU has considered the validity of a decision authorising enhanced cooperation. This is particularly topical given the flurry of initiatives relying upon this mechanism, some of which are now being challenged (such as the UK’s proposed proceedings… Continue reading
-
Anyone for another round? The Court of Appeal’s nuanced approach to the duty of “sincere cooperation”.
The duty of “sincere cooperation” set out in Article 4(3) TEU requires Member States to take appropriate measures to “ensure fulfillment of the obligations arising out of the Treaties or resulting from the acts of the institutions of the Union” as well as to “refrain from any measure which could jeopardise the attainment of the… Continue reading
-
A Bitter Pill: AstraZeneca in the CJEU
The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU)’s much anticipated early Christmas present for generic producers has arrived in the form of its judgment in the AstraZeneca case (Case C-457/10 P AstraZeneca AB and AstraZeneca plc v European Commission, 6 December 2012). The decision upheld that of the General Court and the Opinion of… Continue reading
-
“Imprecise legal concepts” are no excuse
The second chapter of the Microsoft saga unfolded on 27 June 2012, when the General Court largely upheld the €899 million periodic penalty payment imposed on Microsoft for failing to share adequate interoperability information with its competitors. However, it also offered some comfort to proprietors of intellectual property rights, with the Court seemingly retreating from… Continue reading
Newsletter
About
This blog is produced by a group of barristers at Blackstone Chambers and is edited by Tristan Jones, Tom Coates and Flora Robertson.
We hope to spark debate, and encourage all readers to leave comments on the site.
If you have queries for Blackstone Chambers you will find the appropriate contact details here.
COMPETITION BULLETIN 