OREANDA-NEWS. October 02, 2014. The 9th Arbitration Appeal Court reversed the judgment of the Court of Lower Instance, indicating that antimonopoly prohibitions are fully applicable to abusing dominance be economic entities regardless of patent protection of the goods sold by them.

In December 2013, the Federal Antimonopoly Service (FAS Russia) found that TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRIES LIMITED violated Clause 5 Part 1 Article 10 of the Federal Law “On Protection of Competition” as a result of economically and technologically unjustified refusal to conclude a contract with “BIOTEC” MFPDK” CJSC for supplying “Copaxone”. The company failed to execute the warning issued by the antimonopoly body.

The Antimonopoly Service issued TEVA a determination to support competition, particularly, by granting counteragents’ access to the goods under non-discriminatory conditions.

TEVA was fined for the committed violation of the antimonopoly law.

TEVA disagreed with the decision, determination and the order to impose a fine, and filed a lawsuit.

Moscow Arbitration Court allowed the company’s claim accepting TEVA’s arguments on full withdrawal of goods with patent protection, from the scope of application of Article 10 of the Federal Law “On Protection of Competition”.

The 9th Arbitration Appeal Court reversed the judgment of the Court of Lower Instance and supported FAS decision that actions of the company that has the dominant position must not violate the antimonopoly law regardless of whether patent rights were used when such economic entity produces or sales the goods.

“The Appeal Court passed a ruling of principal importance that withdrawals under Part 4 Article 10 of the Federal Law “On Protection of Competition” for exercising exclusive rights for the results of intellectual activity are not applicable to the case, the subject matter of which is abusing dominance by the economic entity by economically or technologically unjustified refusal to supply “Copaxone”, produced only by TEVA, which also has no relation to the issues of concluding licensing agreements for use of intellectual property and other issues, regulated by Part IV of the Civil Code”, pointed out the Head of FAS Department for Control over Social Sphere and Trade, Timophei Nizhegorodtsev.