Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Comment on “Genentech”: The Arbitrability Paradox in EU Competition Law

  • Case Note
  • European Union
  • Published:
IIC - International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law Aims and scope Submit manuscript

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. Case C-567/14, Genentech v. Hoechst GmbH, Sanofi Aventis Deutschland GmbH (2016) ECLI:EU:C:2016:526. For the headnotes to this decision, see this issue of IIC at doi:10.1007/s40319-017-0561-6.

  2. Case C-567/14, Genentech, para. 1.

  3. Case C-567/14, Genentech, para. 19.

  4. Case C-567/14, Genentech, para. 3.

  5. Case C-567/14, Genentech, para. 6.

  6. Case C-567/14, Genentech, para. 10.

  7. Case C-567/14, Genentech, para. 11.

  8. Case C-567/14, Genentech, para. 18. Opinion of Advocate General Wathelet delivered on 17 March 2016 in the Case C-567/14, Genentech v. Hoechst Gmbh, Sanofi Aventis Deutschland Gmbh. ECLI:EU:C:2016:177, paras. 28 and 34.

  9. Case C-567/14, Genentech, para. 15.

  10. AG’s opinion in Genentech, para. 70.

  11. Case C-126/97, Eco Swiss China Time Ltd v. Benetton International NV (1999) ECLI:EU:C:1999:269.

  12. Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards signed in New York in 1958 and entered into force on 7 June 1959. The text of the Convention is available at: http://www.uncitral.org/uncitral/it/uncitral_texts/arbitration/NYConvention.html (accessed 25 October 2016).

  13. AG’s opinion in Genentech, paras. 48 and 56.

  14. AG’s opinion in Genentech, para. 57.

  15. Case C-126/97, Eco Swiss China.

  16. AG’s opinion in Genentech, para. 70.

  17. AG’s opinion in Genentech, para. 70.

  18. AG’s opinion in Genentech, para. 64.

  19. Case C-320/87, Kai Ottung v. Klee & Weilbach A/S e Thomas Schmidt A/S (1989) ECLI:EU:C:1989:195.

  20. AG’s opinion in Genentech, para. 88.

  21. AG’s opinion in Genentech, para. 89.

  22. Case C-567/14, Genentech, paras. 22–23.

  23. Case C-567/14, Genentech, para. 21.

  24. Case C-567/14, Genentech, para. 38.

  25. Case C-567/14, Genentech, para. 41.

  26. Driessen-Reilly (2015), p. 575.

  27. Driessen-Reilly (2015), p. 576.

  28. On this issue, see Korkmazcan and Raziye (2015).

  29. Driessen-Reilly (2015), p. 577.

  30. 156 countries have ratified the 1958 New York Convention. A list of the contracting parties to the Convention is available at: http://www.uncitral.org/uncitral/en/uncitral_texts/arbitration/NYConvention_status.html (accessed 26 October 2016).

  31. Driessen-Reilly (2015), p. 578.

  32. Blanke (2016b), pp. 277–280.

  33. For further information on the ICC activities in the field of competition law, see http://www.iccwbo.org/about-icc/policy-commissions/competition/ (accessed 26 October 2016).

  34. See, for instance, D’Arcy and Furse (1999).

  35. Case C-126/97, Eco Swiss China, para. 26.

  36. Case C-126/97, Eco Swiss China, para. 35.

  37. Case C-126/97, Eco Swiss China, paras. 36–37.

  38. Case C-126/97, Eco Swiss China, para. 39.

  39. Case C-102/81, Nordsee Deutsche Hochseefischerei GmbH v. Reederei Mond Hochseefischerei (1982) ECLI:EU:C:1982:107.

  40. Case C-126/97, Eco Swiss China, para. 33.

  41. Blanke (2016b), pp. 277–280.

  42. Blanke (2016a), p. 36.

  43. AG’s opinion in Genentech, para. 70.

  44. AG’s opinion in Genentech, para. 58.

  45. Case C-168/05, Elisa María Mostaza Claro v. Centro Móvil Milenium SL (2006) ECLI:EU:C:2006:675. Paras. 34–36.

  46. See, for instance, Landolt (2007).

  47. Rohn and Groz (2012), p. 652.

  48. Sajko (2009), p. 460.

  49. Moura Vincente (2015), p. 153.

  50. Moura Vincente (2015), p. 159.

  51. Section 67(2) German Patent Act (Patentgesetz). An English translation of the German patent Act is available at: https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_patg/englisch_patg.html (accessed 26 October 2016).

  52. The possibility was expressly recognized in the explanatory document presented to the German Parliament in 1996 concerning possible amendments to the German arbitration law. The amended arbitration law, approved by the Parliament in 1997, does not expressly mention this possibility, generating debate in the German literature during the past years. The Proposal for Amendment of the German Arbitration Law no. 13/5274 was presented on 12 July 1996, p. 35. The Act Amending the Arbitration Law was published in the Official Journal no. 88, p. 3224, on 30 December 1997. The texts of the proposal and the following Act are available at: https://dejure.org/Drucksachen/Bundestag/BT-Drs._13/5274 (accessed 9 December 2016).

  53. This is the conclusion reached by the Paris Court of Appeal in Société Liv Hidravlika D.O.O. v. S.A. Diebolt. Judgement delivered on 28 February 2008.

  54. Portuguese Industrial Property Code, approved by Decree Law 36/2003 of 5 March 2003 and amended by the following decrees, Art. 49. An English translation of the Code is available at: http://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/text.jsp?file_id=206584#LinkTarget_2783 (accessed 26 October 2016).

  55. Loi sur les brevets d’invention, adopted on 28 March 1984, Art. 51. The text of the Belgium patent law is available at: http://www.wipo.int/edocs/lexdocs/laws/fr/be/be031fr.pdf (accessed 26 October 2016).

  56. Rohn and Groz (2012), p. 654.

  57. Rohn and Groz (2012), p. 653.

  58. Lamb and Garcia (2007).

References

  • Blanke G (2016a) Advocate General supports maximalist review of EU competition law awards. Glob Compet Law Rev 9(3):35–39

    Google Scholar 

  • Blanke G (2016b) Entrusting antitrust issues to arbitration: some personal thoughts and considerations. Arbitr Int 32:275–285

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • D’Arcy L, Furse M (1999) Eco Swiss China v. Benetton: EC competition law and arbitration. Eur Compet Law Rev 20(7):392–394

    Google Scholar 

  • Driessen-Reilly M (2015) Private damages in EU competition law and arbitration: a changing landscape. Arbitr Int 31:567–587

    Google Scholar 

  • Korkmazcan I, Raziye S (2015) The monitoring and enforcement of commitments by way of arbitration in EU competition law. Schulthess Juristische Medien, Zürich

    Google Scholar 

  • Lamb S, Garcia A (2007) Arbitration of intellectual property disputes. The text of the article is available at http://www.twobirds.com/en/news/articles/2007/arbitration-ip-disputes. 26 Oct 2016

  • Landolt P (2007) Limits on court review of international arbitration awards assessed in light of State’s interests and in particular in light of EU law requirements. Arbitr Int 23(1):63–92

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moura Vincente D (2015) Arbitrability of intellectual property disputes: a comparative survey. Arbitr Int 31:151–162

    Google Scholar 

  • Rohn P, Groz P (2012) Drafting arbitration clauses for IP agreements. J Intellect Prop Law 7(9):652–661

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sajko K (2009) Intellectual property rights and arbitration—miscellaneous. In: Prinz zu Waldeck und Pyrmont W et al (eds) Patents and technological progress in a globalized world. Springer, Berlin, pp 445–461

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition, Munich, Germany

    Marco Botta (Scholarship holder)

Authors
  1. Marco Botta
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Marco Botta.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Botta, M. Comment on “Genentech”: The Arbitrability Paradox in EU Competition Law. IIC 48, 235–244 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40319-017-0563-4

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40319-017-0563-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation