ECJ The restrictive nature of article 85(1) is incompatible with any extension of the prohibition for which it provides beyond the three categories of agreement exclusively enumerated therein. The existence of the rights granted by a member state to the holder of a patent is not affected by the prohibitions contained in articles 85(1) and 86 of the treaty. The exercise of such rights cannot of itself fall either under article 85(1), in the absence of any agreement, decision or concerted practice prohibited by this provision, or under article 86, in the absence of any abuse of a dominant position. A higher sale price for the patented product as compared with that of the un-patented product coming from another member state does not necessarily constitute an abuse of a dominant position.
Citations:
C-24/67, [1967] ECR 55, [1968] CMLR 47, [1968] FSR 393, R-24/67, [1968] EUECJ R-24/67
Links:
Cited by:
Cited – Regina and The Secretary of State for Health v Association of Pharmaceutical Importers and Dowelhurst Limited CA 18-Dec-2001
The applicants sought to quash the Scheme in the 1999 Regulations by judicial review. Prescribers under the NHS are not directly concerned with price, and that led to the need for independent regulatory controls over prices. Those controls allowed . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
European, Intellectual Property
Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.131853
