Call for inputs on review of assimilated Technology Transfer Block Exemption

 

Call for inputs on review of assimilated Technology Transfer Block Exemption

 

The Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) is seeking views as part of its review of the assimilated Technology Transfer Block Exemption Regulation (Regulation 316/2014) (TTBER) and the accompanying European Commission guidelines on technology transfer agreements (the Guidelines).

The assimilated TTBER expires on 30 April 2026.

While the TTBER may seem a relatively small matter when navigating compliance of licensing arrangements with competition law, for IPR licensors and licensees it has proven to be a useful instrument.  The review is important as it offers the scope for some divergence between the approaches under EU and UK law.

The assimilated TTBER automatically exempts certain types of technology transfer agreements from the Chapter I prohibition if they meet certain conditions (including market share thresholds, hard core restrictions and excluded restrictions).

The CMA will review whether the assimilated TTBER continues to meet its intended purpose and will take account of any specific features of the UK economy and interests of businesses and consumers.

The CMA is seeking views on whether technology transfer agreements covered by the assimilated TTBER continue to produce benefits outweighing their potential harmful effects on competition (and what these harmful effects are), including whether the TTBER contributes to promoting competition and economic benefits in the UK.

The Guidelines set out general principles for the assessment of technology transfer agreements and provide guidance on the application of the TTBER. Experience of the various incarnations of the TTBER over the years suggests that the 200+ Guidelines can tend to be of more practical utility than the TTBER itself.

The CMA invites responses by 6 September 2024.

https://connect.cma.gov.uk/technology-transfer-block-exemption-regulation

Judgment on payout of costs as part of damages in Mclaren collective settlement

The Competition Appeal Tribunal has given judgment on an application by Mark McLaren Class Representative Limited (the CR) for an order that the costs and part of the damages paid to it by one settling defendant be used to cover part of the CR’s costs, fees and disbursements in connection with the proceedings.

The order relates to sums paid by the Twelfth Defendant (Compania Sudamericana de Vapores SA) pursuant to a settlement agreement in the Mark McLaren Class Representative Limited v MOL (Europe Africa) Ltd and others collective proceedings.

The approved settlement figure is £1.5 million, comprising 1) the damages sum of £1.12 million; 2) the costs of the application for approval of the settlement, of £100,000; 3) the Twelfth Defendant's share of the CR’s costs in the proceedings, of £280,000 (proceedings costs sum).

The CAT considered it does have jurisdiction, under Rule 53(2)(n) of the CAT Rules 2015, to make the order sought. However, it decided it would not be appropriate to assess what sums should be paid to funders before the outcome of the proceedings is known. The CAT found that payment of the “relatively small” sums at stake would do little to lessen the funder’s “exposure and duration risk.”

The CAT, therefore, did not permit the use of any part of the damages sum at this stage. It stated it was, however, prepared to apply an additional £71,000 from the proceedings costs sum to be dealt with in the same way as the £100,000 application costs sum to cover the CR’s costs of the Collective Settlement Approval Order application.

While in this case the CR may not use a settlement agreed with one defendant towards costs in ongoing litigation, the CAT has left open a possibility for future cases.

 

Mark McLaren Class Representative Limited v MOL (Europe Africa) Ltd and others [2024] CAT 47 (Related Costs Application)

CMA publishes issues statement in household pets market investigation

 

 

The Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) has published its issues statement in its market investigation into the supply of veterinary services for household pets in the UK.

The CMA made the market investigation reference on 23 May 2024.

The CMA has identified the following initial high-level theories of harm:

1.       concerns about lack of effective engagement by pet owners in the choice of the best veterinary practice

2.       concentrated local markets

3.       incentives of large integrated groups to act in ways that reduce choice and weaken competition

4.       overpayment by pet owners for medicines or prescriptions

5.       an outdated regulatory framework.

The CMA has also identified some potential remedies that may help to address these issues if one or more adverse effects on competition are identified in the investigation. These could include:

1.       information transparency remedies such as mandating what information should be provided to customers, as well as how and when this should be provided

2.       price remedies such as imposing maxima for prescription fees, or maximum prices or mark-ups for other services

3.       market opening remedies aimed to lower barriers to entry or otherwise to promote competition in the provision of certain elements of veterinary services. Remedies in this category could include targeted structural remedies.

The CMA invites comments on the issues identified by 30 July 2024.

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/cma-takes-next-procedural-step-in-vet-services-investigation