The European Commission on 31 October 2024 imposed a €462.6 million Teva fine for abusing its dominant position to delay competition to Copaxone, its blockbuster medicine for multiple sclerosis. The Commission found that Teva artificially extended the patent protection of Copaxone and systematically spread misleading information about a competing product, according to the Commission's announcement.
Commission Imposes €462.6 Million Teva Fine Over Copaxone Patent Misuse
By The Corporate INTL Newsroom · 31 October 2024
Copaxone contains the active ingredient glatiramer acetate, over which Teva held a basic patent until 2015. The Commission found that Teva was dominant in the markets for glatiramer acetate in Belgium, Czechia, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland and Spain.
Misuse of patent procedures
As its basic patent was about to expire, Teva filed multiple divisional patent applications at the European Patent Office in a staggered way, creating a web of secondary patents on the manufacturing process and dosing regimen. It enforced these patents against competitors to obtain interim injunctions and, when the patents seemed likely to be revoked, withdrew them strategically to avoid a formal invalidity ruling. This forced rivals to start new legal challenges repeatedly. All of Teva's divisional patents have now been annulled.
Disparagement campaign
The Commission also found that Teva ran a systematic campaign spreading misleading information about the safety, efficacy and therapeutic equivalence of a competing glatiramer acetate medicine, even though health authorities had approved it. The campaign targeted doctors and national decision-makers on pricing and reimbursement.
A first for these practices
The Commission concluded that the abuses formed a single and continuous infringement of Article 102 TFEU, lasting between four and nine years depending on the Member State. It is the first time the Commission has fined these two types of practice. The Commission said that once the rival product entered the market, list prices fell by up to 80%. In a statement on the decision, the Commission set out its reasons for acting.
What it means
The decision signals that patent filing and enforcement strategies, and communications about rival medicines, can be scrutinised under competition law when a company is dominant. Pharmaceutical companies may wish to review divisional patent practice and medical communications policies in light of the decision.
Sources
Looking for legal or business advice?
Tell us what you need and the Corporate INTL team will help you find the right lawyer or adviser from our members in 150+ jurisdictions.