competitionlaw

By a decision made on 19 June 2012 ( Case C11524, UGF-Premafin) the Italian Competition Authority (ICA) has conditionally cleared the Unipol Gruppo Finanziario (UGF) acquisition of Premafin Fondiaria (Fondiaria). The notified merger would negatively affect several insurance markets giving or strengthening the UGF dominant position. To avert such negative effects the ICA conditioned the approval of the merger on the implementation of a set of stringent structural and behavioural remedies on the merging parties and on Mediobanca. Mediobanca not only controlled Assicurazioni Generali (AG), the next competitor of the merged entity, but it was also the main funder of the merging parties. The competition problems of the merger The ICA based its concerns about the competition impact of the proposed merger on the market  collectively held by the merging parties and the results of the HHI test. The ICA found that the merger would restrict competition in many non-life and life insuran

By the decision made on 28 September 2012 ( CaseI723 Barriere Stradali ) the Italian Competition Authority (ICA) fined seven undertakings, Metalmeccanica Fracasso, Industria Meccanica Varricchio, Tubosider, Car Segnaletica Stradale, San Marco, Ilva Pali Dalmine Industriale and Steam Generators for breaching Article 101 TFEU. The anticompetitive practice affected the market for motorways and road barriers. The competition infringement found in Barriere Stradali was a collusive tendering which was based on sophisticated mechanism to rotate order among colluders combined with indirect information exchange via a trade association. The anticompetitive practice had effects nationwide. It lasted from May 2003 until 2007 and the participants to it accounted for the 95% share of the relevant  market. The parties carried out a single complex anti-competitive practice the object of which was to fix prices and share markets, removing uncertainties as for the commercial policies of the partie

Pfizer was the owner of the primary patent EP0364417 for the active ingredient of latanoprost used in the production of the glaucoma medicine Xalatan. It extended the patent protection for Xalatan in Italy until January 2012 by applying for a SPC and then for a pediatric extension on the basis of the divisional patent EP198 granted in 2002. By the decision made in the   Ratiopharm/Pfizer   case the Italian Competition Authority (ICA) condemned Pfizer for violation of Article 102 TFEU. The ICA considered that Pfizer abused its dominant position in the market for glaucoma medicines based on latanaprost by deliberately misusing patent application procedures. In doing so, Pfizer sought to extend the patent protection for Xalatan in Italy with the ultimate objective to frustrate or delay the market entry of manufacturers of generic drugs. Pfizer appealed the ICA decision to the Regional Administrative Court for Latium ( Regional Administrative Court for Latium, Pfizer v Italian Com