By Pratyush Nath Upreti
On 23 March 2018, the United States launched a WTO complaint against China’s discriminatory licence practices. The request for consultations filed by the United States highlights the grounds for complaint as:
“China denies foreign patent holders the ability to enforce their patent rights against a Chinese joint-venture party after a technology transfer contract ends. China also imposes mandatory adverse contract terms that discriminate against and are less favorable or imported foreign technology. Therefore, China deprives foreign intellectual property rights holders of the ability to protect their intellectual property rights in China as well as freely negotiate market-based terms in licensing and other technology-related contracts.”
Later in April 2018, Ukraine, Saudi Arabia, Chinese Taipei (Taiwan), and the European Union (EU), formally requested to join the consultations requested by the US, citing a substantial interest in the matters related to the protection of intellectual property rights by WTO members, interpretation of TRIPS Agreement and trade interest.
On 1 June 2018, the European Union filed its own WTO complaint against China’s rules, which are applicable to technology transfer. According to the request for consultations, the European Union has accused China of using its domestic legislation to impose a different set of rules on the import of technology, including intellectual property rights, than the rules which are applicable to technology transfers occurring between Chinese companies. Further, in the consultations request, the EU argues;
“The Chinese measures at issue appear to (i) discriminate against foreign holders of intellectual property rights, and (ii) restrict the foreign right holders’ ability to protect certain intellectual property rights in China, contrary to China’s WTO obligations.”
The WTO consultations give the parties an opportunity to discuss the issues and to find a satisfactory solution without resorting to litigation. In case of failure to produce a satisfactory solution within 60 days, the complainant may request for adjudication by a panel.
In recent years, there have been few IP disputes brought to the WTO Dispute Settlement Understanding (DSU). From 1995-2016, the TRIPS Agreement has been invoked only 33 times in WTO complaints- (20 cases in 1995-99: 5 cases in 2000-04; 1 case in 2005-09; 7 cases in 2010-14; 0 cases in 2015-16). In the past, the US and the EU had a history of IP related tension at WTO with China. However, the recent request for consultations by two key global actors has come at a time when the rise of bilateral and plurilateral trade agreements is at its peak. Thus, these requests for consultations depict their faith in the multilateral system.
 China-Certain Measures Concerning the Protection of Intellectual Property Rights- Request for Consultations by the United States (WT/DS542/1, 26 March 2018)
<https://www.wto.org/english/news_e/news18_e/ds542rfc_26mar18_e.htm> accessed 22 July 2018.
 See communication from the Ukraine, Saudi Arabia, Chinese Taipei (Taiwan), and the European Union (EU) to join consultations requested by the United States.
 China-Certain Measures on the Transfer of Technology – Request for Consultations by the European Union ( WT/DS549/1, 6 June 2018)
 For more information on WTO Dispute Settlement
< https://www.wto.org/english/tatop_e/dispu_e/disp_settlement_cbt_e/c6s2p1_e.htm> accessed 22 July 2018.
 Kara Leitner and Simon Lester, ‘WTO Dispute Settlement 1995-2016- A Statistical Analysis’ (2017) 20(1) Journal of International Economic Law 176. (Based on the statistical data, authors argue that with regards to intellectual property, the number of complaints has been limited and has been a decline in recent years.)
 See China- Measures Affecting the Protection and Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights (WT/DS362) < https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/cases_e/ds362_e.htm> accessed 22 July 2018/
By Nicole Daniel
On 22 March 2018, in a court hearing in the Qualcomm case, Judge Koh expressed her concern over possible abuses in asserting legal privilege over certain documents.
In January 2017, the U.S. FTC sued Qualcomm, alleging that the company consistently refused to license its essential patents to competitors, thereby violating its pledge to standards organizations that it would license them on FRAND terms (fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory). Allegedly, Qualcomm also engaged in a policy of withholding processors unless its customers agreed to patent licensing terms favorable to Qualcomm. A trial is set for January 2019.
Furthermore, a class action alleged that Qualcomm’s behavior raised the prices of devices operating with its chips.
At the hearing, judge Koh said she is “deeply disturbed” by the very high percentage of privilege assertions by Qualcomm. However, Qualcomm continues to produce documents after reviewing them again and removing earlier assertions of privilege. Judge Koh expressed her concerns at the court hearing several times and said that she will allow witnesses to be redeposed, as often as necessary, until all documents are available before testimony.
This issue centers around documents from Apple and other customers which were gathered under an EU investigation into the baseband chipsets market. Even though the plaintiffs have already obtained a redacted version of the Commission’s January 2017 decision fining Qualcomm EUR 997 million, they ask for an unredacted version. In this decision, Qualcomm was fined for paying Apple to refrain from buying rival manufacturers’ chips.
The U.S. plaintiffs argue that Qualcomm should have simply asked for third parties’ permission to share the information given to the EU investigators. Qualcomm in turn argued that it cannot circumvent EU law by making the disclosures asked for and referred to the version of the decision to be published by the Commission. In the public version, the Commission makes its own redactions. The U.S. plaintiffs further argued that they contacted Apple, as well as its contracted manufacturers, and those parties do not object to disclosure. Qualcomm replied that they could simply ask them directly for the information. In sum, the U.S. plaintiffs called Qualcomm’s behavior unfair, as it prevents them from fully understanding the EU decision.
Until early May 2018, no public version of the Commission was available. The Commission and the companies involved are still in the process of deciding on a version of the decision that does not contain any business secrets or other confidential information.
Qualcomm’s Acquisition of NXP Receives Antitrust Clearance by the European Commission, Subject to Commitments
By Kletia Noti
On 28 April 2017, the European Commission (“Commission”) received, pursuant to the EU Merger Regulation, notification of a proposed concentration involving the acquisition, within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the EU Merger Regulation, of NXP Semiconductors N.V., a Dutch global semiconductor manufacturer headquartered in Eindhoven, Netherlands, by Qualcomm Incorporated, a United States company world leader in 3G, 4G and next-generation wireless technologies, through its indirect wholly owned subsidiary Qualcomm River Holdings B.V..
On 9 June 2017, the Commission announced that it was launching an in-depth market investigation (Phase II review). The investigation rests, at least in part, on the basis of conglomerate theories of harm (as will be better seen infra) that resulted from the Commission’s initial market investigation during Phase I. To do away with the Commission’s concerns, Qualcomm submitted a series of commitments (see infra).
On 18 January 2018, the Commission announced that it would clear the proposed transaction, as modified by the commitments, on the ground that it would no longer raise competition concerns. The Commission’s clearance decision is conditional upon Qualcomm’s full compliance with the commitments.
At present, Qualcomm has already received approval from eight of nine required global regulators to finalize the acquisition of NXP. The only exception is China, where clearance is currently pending, amid USA-China trade tensions. Should all the regulatory approvals not be in place by the deadline of 25 July, 2018, Qualcomm’s holding company, Qualcomm River Holdings B.V., will pay NXP a termination fee.
A background: the companies
Qualcomm Incorporated (Qualcomm) is engaged in the development and commercialization of a digital communication technology called code division multiple access (CDMA). Qualcomm is mostly known for mainly developing and supplying baseband chipsets for smartphones, i.e. chips that allow smartphones to connect to cellular networks.
Qualcomm is divided into two main segments: (i) Qualcomm CDMA Technologies (‘QCT’) and; (ii) Qualcomm Technology Licensing (‘QTL’). QCT is a supplier of integrated circuits and system software based on CDMA, Orthogonal frequency-division multiple access (OFDMA), one of the key elements of the LTE standard, and other technologies for use in voice and data communications, networking, application processing, multimedia and global positioning system products. QTL grants licenses or otherwise provides rights to use portions of Qualcomm Incorporated’s intellectual property portfolio, which, among other rights, includes certain patent rights essential to and/or useful in the manufacture and sale of certain wireless products.
NXP Semiconductors N.V. (NXP) is active in the manufacturing and sale of semiconductors, in particular integrated circuits (‘ICs’) and single unit semiconductors. NXP sells broadly two categories of products, standard products and high performance mixed signal (“HPMS”) devices. NXP’s HPMS business includes application-specific semiconductors and system solutions for: (i) Automotive; (ii) Secure Identification Solutions; (iii) Secure Connected Devices; and (iv) Secure Interfaces and Power. The semiconductors supplied by NXP, including near-field communication (NFC) and secure element (SE) chips for smartphones, are chips enabling short-range connectivity, which are used in particular for secure payment transactions on smartphones.
NXP has also developed and owns MIFARE, a leading technology used as a ticketing/fare collection platform by several transport authorities in the European Economic Area (EEA).
On October 2016, Qualcomm and NXP announced a definitive agreement, unanimously approved by the boards of directors of both companies, under which Qualcomm would acquire NXP by way of a share purchase acquisition carried out through Qualcomm River Holdings B.V. On May 11, 2018, Qualcomm Incorporated announced that Qualcomm River Holdings B.V. has extended the offering period of its previously announced cash tender offer to purchase all of the outstanding common shares of NXP Semiconductors N.V. (NASDAQ: NXPI) until May 25, 2018.
The Commission’s concerns and the in-depth investigation
Following its initial market investigation, the Commission had several concerns about semiconductors used in mobile devices and the automotive industry.
Concerns in the markets for chipsets used in mobile devices
Conglomerate effects’ theory of harm
More specifically, the Commission’s market investigation showed that, since the merged entity would hold strong market positions within both baseband chipsets (mainly developed and supplied by Qualcomm) and near field communication (NFC)/secure element (SE) chips (supplied by NXP), it would have had the ability and incentive to exclude Qualcomm’s and NXP’s rival suppliers from the markets (through practices such as bundling or tying).
Concerns in the merged entity’s licencing practices related to parties’ significant intellectual property portfolios
Since the merged entity would have combined the two undertakings’ significant intellectual property (IP) portfolios, in particular with respect to the NFC technology, the Commission was additionally concerned that, post-merger, the Commission would have had the ability and incentive to modify NXP’s current IP licensing practices, in relation to NFC’s technology, including by means of bundling the NFC IP to Qualcomm’s patent portfolio.
According to the Commission, this could have caused the merged entity to avail itself of a stronger buying power vis-à-vis customers than absent the transaction. The Commission opined that this would have led to anticompetitive effects in the relevant market, including by means of higher royalties for the NCF patent licences and/or competitors’ foreclosure.
Concerns in the markets for semiconductors used in the automotive sector
An additional Commission concern was that the merged entity resulting from the proposed acquisition would have removed competition between in the markets for semiconductors used in the automotive sector, and, more specifically, the emerging Vehicle-to-Everything (“V2X”) technology, which will play an important role in the future development of “connected cars” (through which cars can “talk” to other cars).
Phase II investigation
On 21 June 2017, the Commission launched its Phase II market test.
The Commission’s in-depth market investigation during Phase II of the merger review confirmed some of its initial concerns.
Concerns related to MIFARE
One of the Commission’s concerns was that the merged entity would have had the ability and incentive to make it more difficult for other suppliers to access NXP’s MIFARE technology (a contactless security technology platform used as a ticketing/fare collection platform by EEA transport authorities) by possibly raising licencing royalties and/or refusing to licence such technology, thus resulting in potential anticompetitive foreclosure effects for competitors.
Concerns related to interoperability
In addition, the Commission also noted that, due to Qualcomm’s strong position in the supply of baseband chipsets and NPX’s strong position in the supply of near field communication (NFC)/SE chips, the merged entity would have had the incentive and ability to reduce interoperability of such chipsets with those of rival supplies. The Commission feared that this, in turn, could have resulted in competitors’ foreclosure.
Concern related to the merged-entity’s licencing practices
Finally, the in-depth investigation also confirmed concerns that the merged entity would have had the ability and incentive to modify NXP’s current IP licensing practices for NFC technology, which could have led the merged entity to charge significantly higher royalties.
By contrast, the Commission’s initial concerns concerning the markets for semiconductors in the automotive sector were not confirmed.
Concerns related to MIFARE
As seen above, some of the Commission concerns related to possible rivals’ foreclosure effects through actual or constructive refusal to supply of the MIFARE technology.
To address the Commission’s concerns, Qualcomm committed “from the Closing Date and for a period of eight (8) years thereafter, upon written request by any Third Party, to grant any such Third Party a nonexclusive MIFARE License also involving the use of MIFARE Trademarks on commercial terms (including with regard to the fee, scope and duration of the license) which are at least as advantageous as those offered by NXP in existing MIFARE Licenses on the Effective Date”.
Qualcomm also committed “to offer to MIFARE Licensees, on commercially reasonable and nondiscriminatory terms, the extension of the MIFARE Licenses for MIFARE Implementation in an Integrated Secure Element.”
Concerns related to interoperability
A second element of the Commission’s concerns related to the merged entity’s ability and incentive to degrade interoperability of Qualcomm’s baseband chipsets and NPX’s products.
In this respect, Qualcomm also undertook “from the Closing Date, on a worldwide basis and for a period of eight (8) years thereafter to ensure the same level of Interoperability, including, but not limited to, functionality and performance, between: (a) Qualcomm Baseband Chipsets and NXP Products, and the Third Party’s NFC Chips, Secure Element Chips, Integrated Secure Element or NFC/SE or Secure Element Technology; and (b) NXP Products and the Third Party’s Baseband Chipset or Applications Processor as will exist at any point in time between Qualcomm’s Baseband Chipsets and NXP’s Products, unless Qualcomm demonstrates to the Commission by means of a reasoned and documented submission to the Trustee that there are technical characteristics of the Third Party’s products that do not allow Qualcomm to achieve the same level of Interoperability, such as generational differences between Qualcomm’s and the Third Party’s respective chips”.
Concern related to the merged-entity’s licencing practices
The market analysis confirmed the Commission’s initial competition concerns with respect to the licensing of NXP’s NFC patents as a result of the transaction, as seen supra.
Qualcomm committed to not acquire NXP’s NFC standard-essential patents (SEPs) as well as certain of NXP’s NFC non SEPs. NXP undertook to transfer the abovementioned patents that Qualcomm commits not to acquire to a third party, which would be under an obligation to grant a worldwide royalty free licence to such patents for a period of three years. At the same time, with respect to some of NXP’s NFC non-SEPs that Qualcomm would have acquired, in order to do away with the Commission’s concerns, Qualcomm committed, for as long as the merged entity would own these patents, not to enforce rights with respect to these patents vis-à-vis other parties and to grant a worldwide royalty licence with respect to these parties.
On 18 January 2018, the Commission rendered public its decision to clear the proposed transaction, as modified by the commitments submitted by Qualcomm, on the grounds that such commitments would suffice to do away with its competition concerns.
The Commission’s clearance decision is rendered conditional upon Qualcomm’s full compliance with the commitments. A Monitoring Trustee, namely one or more natural or legal person(s) who is/are approved by the Commission and appointed by Qualcomm, has the duty to monitor Qualcomm’s compliance with the obligations attached to this Decision.
Pending sign-off from China’s regulator, the transaction remains incomplete. At Qualcomm, hopes remain high that the situation will be finalized soon.
 Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 of 20 January 2004 on the control of concentrations between undertakings (the EU Merger Regulation) (Text with EEA relevance) Official Journal L 024 , 29/01/2004 P. 0001 – 0022. Under Article 4(1), It is mandatory to notify concentrations with an EU dimension to the European Commission for clearance.
 See prior notification of a concentration (Case M.8306 — Qualcomm/NXP Semiconductors), OJ C 143, 6.5.2017, p. 6–6.
 After notification, the Commission has 25 working days to analyze the deal during the Phase I investigation. If there are competition concerns, companies can offer remedies, which extends the phase I deadline by 10 working days. At the end of a phase I investigation: (a) the merger is cleared, either unconditionally or subject to accepted remedies; or
(b) the merger still raises competition concerns and the Commission opens a Phase II in-depth investigation. If Phase II is opened, the Commission has 90 further working days to examine the concentration. This period can be extended by 15 working days when the notifying parties offer commitments. With the parties’ consent, it can be extended by up to 20 working days.
Brussels, 18 January 2018, press release, “Mergers: Commission approves Qualcomm’s acquisition of NXP, subject to conditions”, available at: http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-18-347_en.htm
Under Article 6(2) EUMR, “Where the Commission finds that, following modification by the undertakings concerned, a notified concentration no longer raises serious doubts within the meaning of paragraph 1(c), it shall declare the concentration compatible with the common market pursuant to paragraph 1(b). The Commission may attach to its decision under paragraph 1(b) conditions and obligations intended to ensure that the undertakings concerned comply with the commitments they have entered into vis-à-vis the Commission with a view to rendering the concentration compatible with the common market.”
On request of China’s commerce ministry (MOFCOM), just days before the regulator’s April 17, 2018 deadline to decide on whether to clear the transaction expired, Qualcomm withdrew its earlier application to MOFCOM on April 14, 2018, and, in concomitance with such withdrawal, it re-filed a new application to obtain clearance of the proposed transaction. See M.Miller, April 16, 2018, Qualcomm to refile China antitrust application for $44 billion NXP takeover: sources, available at: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-qualcomm-antitrust/qualcomm-to-refile-china-antitrust-application-for-44-billion-nxp-takeover-sources and Qualcomm Press Release, Qualcomm and NXP Agree, at MOFCOM Request, to Withdraw and Refile Application for Chinese Regulatory Approval, April 16, 2018: https://www.qualcomm.com/news/releases/2018/04/19/qualcomm-and-nxp-agree-mofcom-request-withdraw-and-refile-application.
 A. Barry, “Stock Selloff Hurts Arbitrage Traders”, 3 May 2018, https://www.barrons.com/articles/stock-selloff-hurts-arbitrage-traders-1525369030
 Qualcomm Press Release, Qualcomm and NXP Agree, at MOFCOM Request, to Withdraw and Refile Application for Chinese Regulatory Approval, April 16, 2018: https://www.qualcomm.com/news/releases/2018/04/19/qualcomm-and-nxp-agree-mofcom-request-withdraw-and-refile-application.
 Qualcomm Press Release, Qualcomm to acquire NXP, 27 October 2016, available at: https://www.qualcomm.com/news/releases/2016/10/27/qualcomm-acquire-nxp.
 Qualcomm Press Release, Qualcomm extends cash tender offer for all outstanding shares of NXP, May 11, 2018, available at: https://www.qualcomm.com/news/releases/2018/05/11/qualcomm-extends-cash-tender-offer-all-outstanding-shares-nxp
 See, for a non-confidential interim text of the commitments, Case M.8306 – QUALCOMM / NXP SEMICONDUCTORS, Commitments to the European Commission, published on 24 January 2018, available at: http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/additional_data/m8306_3395_3.pdf
Brussels, 18 January 2018, press release, “Mergers: Commission approves Qualcomm’s acquisition of NXP, subject to conditions”, available at: http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-18-347_en.htm
See above, foonote 4.
 Under Article 6(2) EUMR, “Where the Commission finds that, following modification by the undertakings concerned, a notified concentration no longer raises serious doubts within the meaning of paragraph 1(c), it shall declare the concentration compatible with the common market pursuant to paragraph 1(b). The Commission may attach to its decision under paragraph 1(b) conditions and obligations intended to ensure that the undertakings concerned comply with the commitments they have entered into vis-à-vis the Commission with a view to rendering the concentration compatible with the common market.”
By Giuseppe Colangelo
The online sales phenomenon – and all the issues deriving from vertical restraints – has attracted significant attention in recent years in several EU Member States. This attention arises mainly from a question regarding the extent to which restrictions limiting the ability of retailers to sell via online marketplaces are compatible with competition rules.
The findings of the recent E-commerce Sector Inquiry [COM (2017) 229 final] indicate that absolute marketplace bans should not be considered to be hardcore restrictions within the meaning of Article 4(b) and Article 4(c) of the Vertical Block Exemption Regulation (330/2010). However, as recalled by the Commission, this approach has been affirmed pending the CJEU’s decision in the Coty Prestige case. Indeed, the Higher Regional Court of Frankfurt am Main essentially asked the EU Court of Justice (CJEU) whether a ban on using third party platforms in a selective distribution agreement is compatible with Article 101(1) TFEU and whether such a restriction constitutes a restriction of competition by object.
No wonder Coty was so anticipated. The judgment is expected to shape the future of EU e-commerce affecting online markets, the luxury industry and Internet platforms.
The request for a preliminary ruling has been submitted in the context of a dispute between a supplier of luxury cosmetics (Coty Germany) and its authorized distributor (Parfümerie Akzente), concerning the prohibition, under the selective distribution agreement, of the use of third-party undertakings for Internet sales. In particular, Parfümerie Akzente distributes Coty goods both at its brick-and-mortar locations and over the Internet. In the latter case, sales are carried out partly through its own online store and partly via the Amazon platform.
According to Coty, the selective distribution system is required in order to support the luxury image of its brands. In this respect, the selective distribution agreement, as it pertains to Internet sales, provides that the authorized retailer is not permitted to use a different name or to engage a third-party undertaking which has not been authorized. The dispute at issue arose when Parfümerie Akzente refused to sign amendments regarding Internet sales activity. They prohibited the use of a different business name and the recognizable engagement of a third-party undertaking which is not an authorized retailer of Coty Prestige. Thus, according to these amendments, the authorized retailer is prohibited from collaborating with third parties if such collaboration is directed at the operation of the website and is affected in a manner that is discernible to the public.
In response to the action brought by Coty to prohibit Parfümerie Akzente from distributing products via Amazon, the German court of first instance found that, in accordance with Pierre Fabre ruling (C-439/09), the objective of maintaining a prestigious image of the mark could not justify the introduction of a selective distribution system which restricts competition. Further, according to the national court, the contractual clause at issue constituted a hardcore restriction under Article 4(c) of the Regulation. It did not meet the conditions for an individual exemption, since it has not been shown that the general exclusion of Internet sales via third-party platforms entails efficiency gains that offset the disadvantages for competition that result from the clause. Moreover, the court considered such a general prohibition unnecessary, since there were other equally appropriate but less restrictive means, such as the application of specific quality criteria for the third-party platforms.
In these circumstances, the Oberlandesgericht Frankfurt am Main requests a preliminary ruling asking: (i) whether selective distribution networks aimed at preserving the image of luxury goods are caught by the prohibition laid down in Article 101(1) TFEU; (ii) whether, in the same context, Article 101(1) precludes a contractual clause which prohibits authorized distributors from using, in a discernible manner, third-party platforms for Internet sales, without consideration of whether there is any actual breach of the legitimate requirements of the manufacturer in terms of quality; (iii and iv) whether Article 4(b) and (c) of the Regulation must be interpreted as meaning that such a third-party platform ban constitutes a restriction by object of the retailer’s customer group or of passive sales to end users.
The questions reflect the diverging interpretations of Pierre Fabre by the national competition authorities and courts. Thus, the case provides the CJEU with the opportunity to clarify the meaning of Pierre Fabre.
Sidestepping Pierre Fabre
By answering the first question, the CJEU recalls that since Metro (C-26/76 and C-75/84), the Court has recognized the legality of selective distribution networks based on qualitative criteria. Notably, according to the conditions set by the case law to ensure the compatibility of a selective distribution network with Article 101(1) TFEU, resellers must be chosen on the basis of objective criteria of a qualitative nature, which are determined uniformly for all potential resellers and applied in a non-discriminatory manner; the characteristics of the product necessitate such a selective distribution network in order to preserve its quality and ensure its proper use; the criteria defined must not go beyond what is necessary.
In the context of luxury goods, it follows from the case law that, due to their characteristics and their nature, those goods may require the implementation of a selective distribution system in order to preserve their quality and to ensure that they are used properly. Indeed, as highlighted by the Copad judgment (C-59/08), the quality of luxury goods is not just the result of their material characteristics, but also of their allure and prestige. As prestige goods are high-end goods, the aura of luxury they emanate is essential in that it enables consumers to distinguish them from similar goods and, therefore, an impairment to that aura is likely to affect the actual quality of those goods. For these reasons, the characteristics and conditions of a selective distribution system may preserve the quality and ensure the proper use of luxury goods. The CJEU in Copad held that the establishment of a selective distribution system which seeks to ensure that the goods are displayed in sales outlets in a manner that enhances their value contributes to the reputation of the goods, and therefore contributes to sustaining the aura of luxury surrounding them.
Therefore, once the Metro criteria are met, a selective distribution system designed primarily to preserve the luxury image of those goods is compatible with Article 101(1) TFEU. This outcome is not challenged by Pierre Fabre. The assertion contained in paragraph 46 of that case (“The aim of maintaining a prestigious image is not a legitimate aim for restricting competition and cannot therefore justify a finding that a contractual clause pursuing such an aim does not fall within Article 101(1) TFEU”) is confined to the context of that judgment and consequently does not alter the settled case law. Notably, that assertion is related solely to the goods at issue (“the goods covered by the selective distribution system at issue in that case were not luxury goods, but cosmetic and body hygiene goods”) and to the contractual clause in question in Pierre Fabre (a general and absolute ban on Internet sales). Therefore, the selective distribution system in its entirety was not at issue.
The same line of reasoning guides the CJEU’s answer to the second question, which is related to the lawfulness of a specific clause prohibiting authorized retailers from using, in a discernible manner, third-party platforms for Internet sales of luxury products.
The contractual clause must be evaluated in light of the Metro criteria. The CJEU recalls that it indisputable that the clause at issue: i) pursues the objective of preserving the image of luxury and prestige of the contractual goods; ii) is objective and uniform; iii) is applied without discrimination to all authorized retailers. Therefore, the lawfulness of the third-party platforms prohibition is a matter of proportionality. Hence, an assessment is required as to whether such a prohibition is appropriate for preserving the luxury image of the contractual goods and whether it goes beyond what is necessary to achieve that objective.
As regards the appropriateness of the prohibition at issue, the CJEU considers the contractual clause justified by the need to preserve the luxury image of the products in light of three arguments. Indeed, the third-party platforms ban is coherent with the aim of: i) guaranteeing that the contract goods will be exclusively associated with authorized distributors; ii) monitoring the qualitative criteria according to which the products are sold (the absence of a contractual relationship between the supplier and third-party platforms prevents the former from being able to require compliance with the quality conditions imposed on the authorized retailers); iii) contributing to the high-end image among consumers (those platforms constitute a sales channel for goods of all kinds, while the chief value of a luxury good lies in the fact that it is not too common).
With regard to the question of whether the prohibition goes beyond what is necessary to achieve the objective pursued, the clause at issue is clearly distinguished from the one sanctioned in Pierre Fabre, since it does not contain an absolute prohibition on online sales. Indeed, authorized retailers are allowed to distribute the contract goods online via their own websites and third-party platforms, when the use of such platforms is not discernible to consumers.
The CJEU also relies on this argument to answer the third and fourth questions raised by the referring court. Even if the clause at issue restricts a specific kind of Internet sale, it does not amount to a restriction within the meaning of Article 4(b) and (c) of the Regulation, since it does not preclude all online sales, but only one of a number of ways of reaching customers via the Internet. Indeed, the contractual clause even allows, under certain conditions, authorized retailers to advertise on third-party platforms and to use online search engines. Moreover, it is not possible ex ante to identify a customer group or a particular market to which users of third-party platforms would correspond. Therefore, the content of the clause does not have the effect of partitioning territories or of limiting access to certain customers.
In summary, in line with the position expressed by the Commission in the Sector Inquiry, the CJEU states that absolute marketplace bans should not be considered as hardcore restrictions since, contrary to the restriction at stake in Pierre Fabre, they do not amount to prohibition on selling online and do not restrict the effective use of the Internet as a sales channel.
Some open issues
Despite the clarity of the CJEU’s findings, there is a matter of interpretation related to the potential limitation of the judgment solely to genuine luxury products. Indeed, the CJEU also distinguishes Coty from Pierre Fabre on the grounds that the latter did not concern a luxury product: “the goods covered by the selective distribution system at issue in [Pierre Fabre] were not luxury goods, but cosmetic and body hygiene goods. … The assertion in paragraph 46 of that judgment related, therefore, solely to the goods at issue in the case that gave rise to that judgment and to the contractual clause in question in that case”.
In that respect, the wording of the CJEU is unfortunate. First, the proposed exclusion of cosmetic and body hygiene products from the luxury landscape is far from convincing. Further, the uncertainty about the scope of the ruling may generate litigation over the prestige of some goods, since national enforcers may adopt different approach and manufacturers would seek protection against online marketplace sales for products whose luxury features are questionable. Indeed, the CJEU does not define the notion of luxury, but relies on Copad, stating that the quality of such goods is not just the result of their material characteristics, but also of the allure and prestigious image which bestow on them an aura of luxury. That aura is essential in that it enables consumers to distinguish them from similar goods.
A few days after the Coty judgement, the German Federal Court of Justice, in evaluating ASICS’s online restrictions, stated that sports and running shoes are not luxury goods. Previously, on 4 October 2017 the District Court of Amsterdam, referring to the Opinion of Advocate General Wahl in Coty, reached a different conclusion about Nike shoes and ruled in favor of Nike in an action against a distributor (Action Sport), which had not complied with the selective distribution policy.
A narrow interpretation of the Coty judgement would be at odds with the settled case law, which holds that it is the specific characteristics or properties of the products concerned that may be capable of rendering a selective distribution system compatible with Article 101(1) TFEU. As pointed out by the Advocate General, the CJEU has already made clear that irrespective even of whether the products concerned are luxury products, a selective distribution system may be necessary in order to preserve the quality of the product. In the same vein, according to the Commission’s Guidelines, qualitative and quantitative selective distribution is exempted regardless of both the nature of the product concerned and the nature of the selection criteria as long as the characteristics of the product necessitate selective distribution or require the applied criteria. It is the properties of the products concerned, whether they lie in the physical characteristics of the products (such as high-quality products or technologically advanced products) or in their luxury or prestige image, that must be preserved.
However, the mentioned ambiguity does not seem to have a significant impact in practice. Indeed, whether or not an online marketplace ban should be considered as hardcore restrictions within the meaning of Article 4(b) and (c) of the Regulation does not depend on the nature of products. Since, according to the CJEU’s finding, absolute marketplace bans are not hardcore restrictions, a case-by-case analysis of effects will be required for both luxury and non-luxury goods.
 Coty Germany GmbH v. Parfümerie Akzente GmbH (C-230/16).
 Case KVZ 41/17.
 Case C/13/615474 / HA ZA 16-959.
By Nicole Daniel
On 13 March 2018 Teva appeared at a closed-doors antitrust hearing in Brussels to contest EU pay-for-delay charges (COMP/39.686).
In April 2011 the European Commission opened an investigation against Teva and Cephalon, both pharmaceutical companies, for a 2005 pay-for-delay agreement. This investigation was a consequence of the 2009 sector inquiry of the pharmaceutical sector which had resulted in an EU policy of penalizing pay-for-delay settlements. This sector inquiry identified structural issues and companies’ practices that led to competition distortions. The Commission also recommend a stronger enforcement of patent settlements. Accordingly, these settlements are now monitored by the Commission on an annual basis.
Furthermore, this is the fourth pay-for-delay antitrust case opened after the sector inquiry. In Lundbeck (COMP/39.226), Servier (COMP/39.612) and Johnson & Johnson (COMP/39.685), the respective pharmaceutical companies were fined by the Commission. On 8 September 2016 the General Court upheld the Lundbeck Commission decision, thereby confirming the Commission’s finding that pay-for-delay agreements are a restriction by object, i.e. treating such an arrangement as infringement regardless of whether it has an anticompetitive effect. In the Servier case, the appeal to the General Court is still pending. The Johnson & Johnson case was not appealed.
The Teva case regards modafinil, a sleep-disorder drug. The patents for modafinil and its manufacture were owned by Cephalon but after certain patents expired, Teva entered the market with its generic version for a few months. A lawsuit for alleged patent infringement followed and the litigation in the UK and the U.S. was settled with a world-wide pay-for-delay agreement. In 2005 Teva received $ 125 million to delay the sale of generic modafinil. The agreement saw Teva taking modafinil off the market until October 2012. In the meantime, Cephalon became a subsidiary of Teva.
In the U.S. the same deal was also investigated by the authorities; this probe, however; was concluded with a $ 1.2 billion settlement.
On 17 July 2018 Teva received a Statement of Objections from the Commission. At that time Teva commented that it “strongly disagreed” with the Commission’s approach to patent settlements in the pharmaceutical industry. The Commission’s view is that substantial harm to health service budgets and EU patients may have been caused by the agreement, since it led to higher prices for modafinil.
It is possible for companies to respond in writing and in person to a Statement of Objections. On 13 March 2018 Teva therefore attended a closed-doors hearing in Brussels to respond to the allegations above.
It should be noted that since Teva had already started marketing its generic version of modafinil, this aspect could be an important element in deciding whether the market suffered due to that agreement. In other pay-for-delay cases, the pharmaceutical companies often argued that there was no anticompetitive intent or effect since no generic version, i.e. a rival product, had launched. However, this line of defense might not be applicable here.
It remains to be seen how the Commission will respond to Teva’s arguments.
By Giuseppe Colangelo
Almost ten years have passed since the Commission began its proceeding against Intel. However, the lawfulness of Intel’s practices remains inconclusive. In its recent judgment (Case C-413/14 P), the Grand Chamber of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) set aside a previous ruling in which the General Court affirmed the decision of the Commission to prohibit Intel’s practices, and referred the case back to the General Court.
The judgment turns on efficiency-enhancing justifications. The Grand Chamber of the CJEU, just as in Post Danmark I (Case C-209/10), reiterates that antitrust enforcement cannot disregard procompetitive effects even in the case of unilateral conduct, such as loyalty rebates. Although Article 102 does not reproduce the prohibition-exemption structure of Article 101, for the sake of consistency there must be room to allow unilateral practices as well. Therefore, like agreements restrictive by object, unilateral conduct which is presumed to be unlawful, as loyalty rebates are, can also be justified and rehabilitated because of the efficiency and consumer welfare benefits it can produce. The General Court’s formalistic approach towards Intel’s rebates demonstrated the need for the CJEU to clarify the role that assessing procompetitive effects must play in the analysis of dominant firms’ practices.
To this end, the CJEU suggests ‘clarifying’ the interpretation of Hoffman-La Roche (Case 85/76), one of the totems of EU antitrust orthodoxy. Unfortunately, it accomplishes exactly the opposite. Intel clearly supports the economic approach by denying a formalist, or per se, shortcut to the authorities. The abusive character of a behavior cannot be established simply on the basis of its form.
In Hoffman-La Roche, the CJEU pronounced that it considered any form of exclusive dealing anathema. To make the link to the exclusive dealing scenarios depicted in Hoffman-La Roche apparent, the General Court introduced a class of ‘exclusivity rebates’ in its ruling on Intel’s pricing practices. This is a new category of discounts different from the previously defined classes of quantity and fidelity rebates.
However, in its judgment the CJEU offers a different interpretation of the law on fidelity rebates. For those cases where dominant firms offer substantive procompetitive justifications for their fidelity rebates, the CJEU requires the Commission to proffer evidence showing the foreclosure effects of the allegedly abusive practice, and to analyze: (i) the extent of the undertaking’s dominant position on the relevant market; (ii) the share of the market covered by the challenged practice as well as the conditions and arrangements for granting the rebates in question, their duration and their amount; (iii) the possible existence of a strategy aimed at excluding from the market competitors that are at least as efficient as the dominant undertaking. As expressly acknowledged by the CJEU, it is this third prong – that is, the assessment of the practice’s capacity to foreclose – which is pivotal, because it “is also relevant in assessing whether a system of rebates which, in principle, falls within the scope of the prohibition laid down in Article 102 TFEU, may be objectively justified.”
The Intel ruling is also a significant step towards greater legal certainty. In addition to being able to effectively assert efficient justifications to overturn the presumption of anti-competitiveness, firms also know that for the CJEU the ‘as efficient competitor test’ (AEC test) represents a reliable proxy (although not the single or decisive criterion) of analysis that cannot be ignored, especially when used by the Commission in its evaluations.
The application of the effect-based approach to all unilateral conduct of dominant firms brings the European experience closer to the rule of reason analysis carried out under Section 2 of the Sherman Act. As indeed is explained by the Court of Appeals in Microsoft [253 F.3d 34 (D.C. Circuit 2001)], when it comes to monopolistic conduct, where the task of plaintiffs complaining about the violation of antitrust law is to show the exclusionary effects of the conduct at stake and how this has negatively affected consumer welfare, the task of the dominant firm is to highlight the objective justifications of its behavior.
Full-work Licensing Requirement 100 Percent Rejected: Second Circuit Rules in Favor of Fractional Licensing
By Martin Miernicki
On 19 December 2017, the Second Circuit handed down a summary order on the BMI Consent Decree in the dispute between the Department of Justice (DOJ) and Broadcast Music, Inc. (BMI). The court ruled that the decree does not oblige BMI to license the works in its repertoire on a “full-work” basis.
ASCAP and BMI are the two largest U.S. collective management organizations (CMOs) which license performance rights in musical works. Both organizations are subject to so-called consent decrees which entered into force 2001 and 1994, respectively. In 2014, the DOJ’s Antitrust Division announced a review of the consent decrees to evaluate if these needed to be updated. The DOJ concluded the review in August 2016, issuing a closing statement. The DOJ declared that it did not intend to re-negotiate and to amend the decrees, but rather stated that it interpreted these decrees as requiring ASCAP and BMI to license their works on a “full-work” or “100 percent” basis. Under this rule, the CMOs may only offer licenses that cover all performance rights in a composition; thus, co-owned works to which they only represent a “fractional” interest cannot be licensed. In reaction to this decision, BMI asked the “rate court” to give its opinion on this matter. In September 2016, Judge Stanton ruled against the full-work licensing requirement, stating that the decree “neither bars fractional licensing nor requires full-work licensing.”
Decision of the court
On appeal, the Second Circuit affirmed Judge Stanton’s ruling and held that fractional licensing is compatible with the BMI Consent Decree. First, referencing the U.S. Copyright Act – 17 U.S.C. § 201(d) –, the court highlighted that the right of public performance can be subdivided and owned separately. Second, as fractional licensing was common practice at the time the decree was amended in 1994, its language does indicate a prohibition of this practice. Third, the court rejected the DOJ’s reference to Pandora Media, Inc. v. ASCAP, 785 F. 3d 73 (2d Cir. 2015) because this judgment dealt with the “partial” withdrawal of rights from the CMO’s repertoire and not with the licensing policies in respect of users. Finally, the Second Circuit considered it to be irrelevant that full-work licensing could potentially advance the procompetitive objectives of the BMI Consent Decree; rather, the DOJ has the option to amend the decree or sue BMI in a separate proceeding based on the Sherman Act.
Implications of the judgement
The ruling of the Second Circuit is undoubtedly a victory for BMI, but also for ASCAP, as it must be assumed that ASCAP’s decree – which is very similar to BMI’s decree – can be interpreted in a similar fashion. Unsurprisingly, both CMOs welcomed the decision. The DOJ’s reaction remains to be seen, however. From the current perspective, an amendment of the decrees appears to be more likely than a lengthy antitrust proceeding under the Sherman Act; the DOJ had already partly toned down its strict reading of the decree in the course of the proceeding before the Second Circuit. Yet, legislative efforts might produce results and influence the further developments before a final decision is made. A recent example for the efforts to update the legal framework for music licensing is the “Music Modernization Act” which aims at amending §§ 114 and 115 of the U.S. Copyright Act.