Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 04 AUGUST 2018

Power and purpose: Protecting a competitive position after ACCC v Pfizer

Corrs Chambers Westgarth
Corrs Chambers Westgarth
Contributor
Corrs Chambers Westgarth

Corrs Chambers Westgarth

Corrs Chambers Westgarth is Australia’s leading independent law firm. We provide exceptional legal...

View firm profile
Explore more from Corrs Chambers Westgarth

This judgment does provide some clarity on the issue of anti-competitive purpose, for pharmaceutical patent owners.

AustraliaAntitrust/Competition Law

SUMMARY

On 25 May 2018, in ACCC v Pfizer,1 the Full Court confirmed that a patent owner with substantial market power may not necessarily be acting with an anti-competitive purpose if it seeks to protect its market position when faced with significant competitive threats in the lead up to patent expiry. On 25 June 2018, the ACCC announced that it had sought special leave to the High Court.

Australia's competition law has changed since the matter was brought and decided by two Courts, and the case may yet be heard by the High Court. However, the judgment provides some clarity on the issue of anti-competitive purpose. This is a central issue in pharmaceutical markets, where originator pharmaceutical companies continue to search for new ways to protect assets in which they have made substantial investments as patent expiry approaches.

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

See more popular content from