- Home
- News
- Articles+
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- AI
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
- News
- Articles
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- AI
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
European Commission Penalizes Teva Of $463 mn To Block Competition To Copaxone
European Commission Penalizes Teva Of $463 mn To Block Competition To Copaxone
The world's largest generic drugmaker said it would appeal against the penalty
The European Commission has fined Teva 462.6 million euro ($502 million) for abusing its dominant position to impede competition to Copaxone in Belgium, the Czech Republic, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland and Spain for its blockbuster medicine for multiple sclerosis.
The European Union (EU) watchdog observed that Teva "artificially extended the patent protection" of its drug Copaxone and "systematically spread misleading information about a competing product to hinder its market entry and uptake."
Margrethe Vestager, the competition chief of the EU stated, “The decision to impose an antitrust fine on Teva for disparagement and misuse of the patent system reaffirms the Commission's commitment to competition enforcement in the pharmaceutical sector.”
She added, "It contributes to keeping drugs affordable, preserving choice of treatment and fostering innovation, to the benefit of EU patients and national healthcare systems.”
However, the Israel-based company said it was "deeply disappointed" by the fine and would "vigorously defend its position on appeal.”
The company’s statement read, "Teva disagrees with the Commission's legal theories, which are legally untested and not supported by facts.”
Meanwhile, this is not Teva's first EU fine. In 2020, the regulators fined the company and drugmaker Cephalon (which Teva later bought) for colluding to delay a cheaper generic version of a sleep disorder drug.
Teva challenged that fine and its appeal is pending.