Carsten Koenig ‘Comparing Parent Company Liability in EU and US Competition Law’ (2018) World Competition 41(1) 69

This paper, available here , contrasts how law parent companies can be fined for antitrust infringements by their subsidiaries under EU competition law, while courts in the US are reluctant to hold parent companies directly or indirectly liable in private damages suits. The author argues that one of the main reasons why EU competition law holds parent companies liable is to solve an under-deterrence problem that occurs when subsidiaries lack sufficient assets to pay fines or damages. US antitrust law uses other enforcement instruments to address under-deterrence by, in particular the individual liability of managers and employees. The article consists of four substantive parts: In section 2, the paper reviews the case law and literature on parent company liability for antitrust infringements by subsidiaries in the European Union and the United States. In the EU, the single economic entity doctrine is deeply ingrained in competition law. The European court interprets the concept of ‘undertaking’ in a functional way: it is the economic entity…

Robert D. Anderson, Alison Jones and Bill Kovacic ‘Preventing Corruption, Supplier Collusion and the Corrosion of Civic Trust: A Procompetitive Program to Improve the Effectiveness and Legitimacy of Public Procurement’ (forthcoming, George Mason Law Review)

You can find this paper here. There is also a shorter version of the paper available here. Governments around the world spend an estimated US$9.5 trillion on goods and services each year. This accounts for roughly one third of government expenditures (29.1% on average in OECD countries) and 10% to 20% of total gross domestic product (“GDP”) in many nations. Furthermore, public procurement is an essential input to the delivery of broader public services and functions of government that are vital for growth, development and social welfare. The special procedures that characterise public procurement are necessary in light of the principal-agent problem and moral hazards that public procurement entails. Conventional responses to the problems of corruption and supplier collusion in public procurement comprise two broad sets of tools. The first, focusing on corruption issues, involves measures to increase the transparency of public procurement and to strengthen the accountability of responsible public officials for malfeasance. The second, aimed at preventing supplier collusion,…

Cyril Ritter ‘Antitrust in two-sided markets: looking at the U.S. Supreme Court’s Amex case from an EU perspective’ Journal of European Competition Law & Practice (2019, forthcoming)

As reviewed in last week’s email/posts, the U.S. Supreme Court recently found that American Express’s ‘anti-steering’ rules did not violate U.S. antitrust law (in a decision reviewed here). In its judgment, the Supreme Court addressed a variety of topics essential to antitrust analysis – market definition, two-sided markets, harm through price effects and output effects, cross-market efficiencies and ancillary restraints – in ways which are at odds with the European approach. This paper, available here, seeks to compare the EU and US approaches in this respect.   It is structured as follows: Section three contains a comparison of the AmEx majority and dissenting opinions. In the interest of clarity, I will review it here, instead of following the paper’s structure. In Ohio v American Express, the majority held that only one market should be defined in two-sided transaction markets. Because there is a single relevant market, cognisable harm must refer to net harm across merchants and cardholders. Even demonstrating that the benefits…

Harry First ‘Excessive Drug Pricing as an Antitrust Violation’ (forthcoming on the Antitrust Law Journal)

In the US, there have been antitrust enforcement efforts against various pharmaceutical practices that elevate price above the competitive level, such as reverse payments (or pay-for-delay), product hopping, and collusion among generic drug manufacturers. However, the conventional wisdom is that U.S. antitrust laws do not forbid high prices simpliciter. This paper argues that the conventional wisdom may be mistaken: Section 1 engages in a general discussion of the problem of high prices and provides two examples of a non-antitrust approach to this problem. The standard antitrust/welfare economics paradigm condemns high prices at least on the grounds of resource misallocation and deadweight welfare loss. Many scholars go beyond deadweight welfare loss concerns, condemning monopoly pricing because of the redistribution of the consumer surplus from consumers to producers, but some are indifferent to this redistribution. There is an additional argument that can be made against high prices, but it is one to which antitrust is often indifferent: high prices can be seen…

Peter Georg Picht  ‘FRAND determination in TCL v. Ericsson and Unwired Planet v. Huawei: Same same but different?’ Max Planck Institute for Innovation & Competition Research Paper No. 18-07

This paper, which can be found here,  compares Unwired Planet/Huawei – a UK case reviewed here, and which appeal was discussed last week – and TCL/Ericsson, a US case. TCL deals with Ericsson-owned SEPs and Ericsson-granted licences, while Unwired Planet focuses on SEPs acquired by Unwired Planet from Ericsson. While looking at similar sets of facts, the courts arrived at different conclusions regarding how to determine FRAND royalty rates. This paper argues that this difference arises from the courts’ take on two core approaches in FRAND royalty calculation – “top-down” and “comparable prior licences” (‘Comparables’). Unwired Planet can be said to have favoured a ‘Comparables’ approach, while TCL looks more favourably at the top-down approach. The paper contends that both methods are important in FRAND licensing, it is unlikely that either a top-down or Comparables approach will – or should – prevail as the obviously best approach to complex cases. The paper is structured as follows: Section II provides the…

Sophie Lawrance and Edwin Bond on ‘Reverse-payment’ patent settlement agreements: non-cash value transfers are not immune from competition law scrutiny’ (2018) Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice 13(7) 552

This article – which can be found here – argues that a non-cash value transfer – particularly commitments by the producer of a branded drug not to launch a generic version of its drug – is able to bring a pay-for-delay agreement within the scope of the antitrust prohibition of reverse-payment patent settlement agreements. It does so as follows: The paper first looks at the law in the US as regards non-cash value transfer settlements. In its landmark 2013 FTC v, Actavis decision, the US Supreme Court held that pharmaceutical patent settlements which involve ‘large’ and ‘unexplained’ reverse payments may breach the antitrust rules. However, and as a result of the Supreme Court’s lack of detailed guidance, the lower US courts have in the last few years found themselves considering a fairly basic question: what constitutes a ‘payment’? While a couple of US district courts concluded that patent settlements that do not involve a cash transfer could not constitute unlawful…

Zygimantas Juska ‘The Effectiveness of Antitrust Collective Litigation in the European Union’ (2018) International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law 49(1) 633

The article, which can be found here, seeks to assess whether European efforts to promote compensation for anticompetitive harm have been successful. These efforts have focused on promoting compensation, treating deterrence as a goal best promoted through public enforcement. It finds that collective enforcement has not been successful in the EU, particularly by comparison to the US, where the main objective of private enforcement is deterrence. By granting standing to both direct and indirect purchasers without also creating appropriate collective redress mechanisms, the EU system merely ensures that neither direct purchasers nor indirect purchasers can effectively exercise their right to compensation. The paper argues that Europe should adopt a deterrence-enhancing approach to private enforcement that borrows from the US. The paper is structured as follows: Section 2 provides an overview of competition enforcement models in the EU, with an emphasis on private enforcement. It begins by describing how public enforcement prevails in EU competition law, which broadly assumes that fines and…

Eckart Bueren, Kai Hüschelrath, and Tobias Veith ‘Time is Money–How Much Money is Time? Interest and Inflation in Competition Law Actions for Damages’ (2016) Antitrust Law Journal 81(1) 271

One aspect that is often overlooked, but is of enormous practical importance in competition damages cases, is the way a legal system deals with costs associated with the passage of time, as expressed through interest and inflation. Cartel damages generally are spread over a cartel’s lifespan, which can be long; furthermore, a considerable amount of time often elapses between the incidence of loss and the award of damages. This paper – which can be found here – seeks to address a gap in the literature by describing how major legal systems deal with interest and inflation in the context of antitrust damage claims, what the consequences are of adopting certain approaches to interest and inflation for recoverable damage amounts, and whether these approaches are economically sound. The paper is structured as follows: The first section describes the main economic approaches to address the passage of time on damages awards and for selecting an appropriate interest rate. Four main measures are identified: the…

Jens-Uwe Franck and Martin Peitz ‘Toward a coherent policy on cartel damages’ (2018) University of Manheim Discussion Paper No. 007

In short, the argument of this paper – which can be found here – is that there is an undue focus on overcharges when talking about cartel damages. The authors argue that significant losses can be suffered as a result of volume effects as well, i.e. from reduced sales / purchases as a result of the higher price that results from a competition infringement. This has implications in terms of standing, since victims of volume effects may not be allowed to bring claims for damages. This is mistaken, and standing should be granted to victims of volume effects. The argument is developed as follows: Part II outlines the law on antitrust standing in the U.S. and the E.U., as well as the basic economics of cartel damages and optimal deterrence. In the US, only direct purchasers or sellers have standing to claim antitrust damages, alongside some victims of ‘umbrella pricing’ (i.e. when non-cartelists raise their prices as a consequence of a competition infringement)….

Margherita Colangelo ‘Reverse Payment Patent Settlements in the Pharmaceutical Sector Under EU and US Competition Laws: A Comparative Analysis’ (2017) World Competition 40(3) 47

As its name indicates, this paper – which can be found here – compares the European and American approaches to pay-for-delay agreements – i.e. those agreements between an originator and a generics manufacturer where the former pays the latter to settle a patent injunction and agrees conditions to delay generic entry into the market. This payment goes against the standard expectation that a defendant in a patent suit would pay an IP-holding plaintiff to settle, but it is nonetheless economically rational for both parties: ‘the profit that the generic entering the market anticipates selling at a significant discount to the price of the brand-name product will be much less than the profit the brand-name drug company loses from the same sales applying the monopolistic price’. Settling the dispute eliminates the potential for competition and allows the parties to share profits that would otherwise be eroded by lower prices. The argument is that, while the case-mix on each side of the…