Category Archives: Latest News

How to get a law training contract

Those looking to pursue a career in law will know that training contracts and pupillages are the golden ticket – and final step on the road to qualifying as a solicitor.

This period of recognised training helps you put your knowledge into a real-life context, and over two years you have the chance to learn about the law firm’s different departments, including contentious and non-contentious practice areas, and get training from an expert in the field.

With a training contract in place, you can pass the Professional Skills Course (PSC). You’ll need to have gained experience in client care and professional standards, financial and business skills and advocacy and communication skills.

With major opportunities for development at stake, you’ll need to find the law firm that’s right for you. LawCareers.Net has a great training contract search, so it’s worth beginning your search then.

Once you’ve made a list of firms you’d like to work with, you need to be able to stand out from the crowd. How do you do that when there’s so much competition?

With over 40 years’ of experience, Bindman & Co solicitors know what makes a great applicant. They have heavily invested in the training of future solicitors and legal professionals in their native North East, recently welcoming two apprentices and providing a Law Training Contract to one staff member.

Tapping into his years’ of experience, senior partner Leslie Bindman — who has been practicing for 41 years — has shared some advice on how to pip the competition to the post for that vital training contract…

Be selective – and know why you’ve picked the firm

You don’t want to limit yourself by only applying to one firm, but a scattergun approach won’t show your interest in an individual firm. Make your choice wisely, and make sure you include some reasons why you applied to that firm in particular. Be considered, complimentary and honest.

Make sure you meet the firm’s criteria and show it in the application

You’re wasting your time – and the firm’s – if they need you to have grades you haven’t achieved, or don’t meet other criteria. Only apply for positions you are eligible for, and your 100 percent more likely to succeed. When it comes to the application, answer exactly what you’re asked – if you need to give two examples, give two. The devil’s in the detail, and you need to be able to follow briefs and instructions to the letter.

Get as much industry experience as possible
It’s an obvious one, but that’s because it’s so important. You need to show your dedication to the job and the industry, and having undertaken work experience is a great way to do this. Summer and winter breaks are a great time to do this – shadow a solicitor for a week, or answer the telephones in a firm – it all helps.

Show you’re a worker

Law’s an intensive course, so law firms are always impressed if candidates have managed to have a job whilst studying. It shows you’re a hard worker, stand on your own two feet, and can handle different types of responsibility.

Give it some personality

The law firm has to work with you for two years – if not longer if they offer you a position – so you need to makes sure you’re likeable. Find ways to showcase your personal interests and personality. Be yourself too, you want them to like you for you, and you need to be comfortable while you work there.

15 Common Myths About Child Custody

There are many misconceptions about child custody not only in Fort Worth but the entire world. Some divorcing parents are forced to believe in such myths because they are very common to a point many people think they are facts.

It is however important to get facts straight to those starting on this journey or even those that have been to several court proceedings but yet to receive the verdict from the judge.

1. The parent who leaves forfeits child custody

This is a common myth whereby those abandoned believe the other parent forfeits child custody the moment they left. They end not filing for child custody. Legally, both parents share child custody both legal and physical until they receive a formal child custody order from the court.

2. Only criminal cases are entitled to free legal representation

There are many parents who do not know that they are entitled to free legal representation. In child custody case if you cannot afford the services of a professional lawyer then you can request the court or legal aid to help by appointing one for you.

3. Only a lawyer can represent you in court

The main reason why you should hire a professional child custody lawyer is because they better understand the legal and court procedures such that they can help you get through the process faster. You are however entitled to represent yourself in court if you want to.

4. Child custody order by the court is final

A child custody court order is not final and can be changed by appealing. With the help of a professional family lawyer experienced in child custody cases, you will be able to file the right paperwork. Legal representation in the appeal process would also be vital in altering the previous court order

5. Mothers are favored in child custody

The court is not biased in any way based on gender. The court has only the interests of the child and therefore looks into various factors other than gender or financial standings.

6. Financially fit parents win custody

The decision of the court is never solely determined by the well-being of the couple. A number of factors are looked into.

7. Willingness to compromise is a sign of weakness

Sometimes based on a specific case, the court can grant custody to the parent who is more willing to compromise. The parent who is more than willing to sacrifice personal interests for the sake of the child’s interests mostly gets the custody

8. Parents who fail to pay for child support will be denied visitation

Usually, child custody/visitation and child support are considered completely different issues. This, therefore, means that failure to pay for child support does not guarantee that one will be denied visitation

9. Parents get awarded either legal or physical custody

Upon listening to arguments from both sides, the court may decide to award both parents legal custody but one to have the physical custody or completely deny one parent both legal and physical custody awarding them to one parent.

Legal custody is a case whereby a parent has legal obligations to their children but can’t live with them. In such a case, the parent will participate in crucial child welfare issues such as medical care and education.

10. Parents have a right to their children

This is one major misconception that many parents have. Parents don’t have a right to their children but rather obligations. Children, on the other hand, have all the rights and that is why the court always has the child’s best interests taken care of.

11. A child can decide the parent to live with once they reach a specific age

There is no law that says this. What happens is that as the child grows older, they will tend to be dissatisfied with spending time with either parent.

In such a case, a court hearing should be organized to change the parenting arrangement.
However, the child’s wishes will have to be keenly scrutinized before a decision is made.

Family reports from a neutral party especially a psychologist is taken as crucial evidence to grant the child his/her wishes.

12. Divorced parents find it easier communicating to each other through children

This is quite common as you will hear messages passed to the other parent after a weekend of visitation. As much many parents think it is working, the truth is that you are dragging the child into your own mess.

If divorcing parents have to communicate on anything, let them do it without involving the children.

13. Child support will not be needed in a case where parents share joint custody

Child support is actually factored in to provide financial support for the child. Whether they hold joint custody or not this should be set with the salaries of both parents factored in.

14. My ex and I are even- we do not need a court order

After divorce, there are some parents who maintain a respectful relationship like calling each other to know the well being of the child and offer the necessary support as needed. When this is the case, they feel there no need to involve lawyers and the court.

What will happen when your partner decides to move on and marry or get married? Such are the complexities of divorce that the court looks into and gives a custody order that will have the best interests of the child.

15. The parent with more money pays for child support

Courts usually have a mathematical formula that puts various factors into perspective whereby income of the parents is just part. With the formula, both parents will be given the amount they will pay as child support until the child attains the legal adult age.


With a family lawyer, you will get to understand the entire process, guide you through the legal system and follow the right procedure to ensure the case is decided on your favor. Now that you have learnt the common misconceptions out there regarding child custody, it is crucial to make up your mind whether to hire a fort worth child custody lawyer or not. Despite the fact that you can file for legal child custody on your own.

Bank Guarantee can be released by an Additional Arbitration Award – Delhi High Court

One of the frequently encountered issue in arbitration proceedings is missing out of a claim and parties seeking remedy by way of an amendment to the award or by way of an additional award. Normally the scope of correction of the award under S.33 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act,1996 is limited to errors and if both the parties agree, an interpretation of an issue. But if a substantial issue is already decided in the arbitration award but a consequential prayer was missed out in the claim and hence arbitrator could not grant an award, then an application seeking additional arbitration award can be filed. In such situations, the opposite parties also raise the issue of limitation, without understanding the settled law that the consequential directions do not require to be raised within the limitation period, if the substantial issues are already raised within the limitation period.

Relating to an arbitration arising out of a supply contract between Motorola and Mahanagar Telecom Nigam Limited (MTNL), in a proceeding to challenge the arbitration award under S.34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act,1996, Delhi high court by a detailed judgment dated 31st March, 2017, in SCC Online Del 7736, upheld the sustainability of not only the main arbitration award but also an additional arbitration award. In this case MTNL challenged the Arbitration award which was in favour of the claimant on various grounds, before the High Court of Delhi.

Both the arbitral awards involved in this case were passed by a sole Arbitrator arising out of a Letter of intent dated 11th January 2000, for providing 50K lines of CDMA IS-95 A, WLL equipment project in Delhi MTNL on turnkey for survey, design and supply of equipment, installation, testing, commissioning, making over system consignee, training, providing AMC etc., in favour of Motorola. The arbitrator passed the final arbitration award in favour of Motorola, holding that the breaches to the contract are attributable to MTNL and not to Motorola.  But since there was no specific claim seeking the return of bank guarantees furnished by Motorola, the award did not have such a direction. Hence Motorola filed an application seeking an additional award, directing MTNL to return the Bank Guarantee. Hence Arbitrator passed an additional award directing MTNL to return the Bank Guarantees.

Hence MTNL challenged both the main award as well as additional award. The additional award was challenged under S.34 on two main grounds. The first was that the application was barred by law of limitation, hence it must be rejected. The 2nd ground was that in the absence of an issue relating to return of Bank guarantee and consequential findings in the main award, the arbitrator ought to have rejected the application for additional award. But in a detailed judgment, Justice Mr. Muralidhar of Delhi High Court upheld the award with a finding that the additional award is legal and no need to frame a separate issue for return of BG since the arbitrator has already found that the breach is committed by MTNL, in the main award and direction to return of BGs is just a consequential award.

What your Attorney wants you to know about Wrongful Death

As far as personal injuries go, the worst injury one can suffer as a result of someone else’s intentional or negligent behaviour is death. While the injured party can’t file a wrongful death lawsuit, his or her surviving family members can file a suit on behalf of the deceased person, also referred to as the decedent.

A wrongful death lawyer is needed when someone’s life has been taken due to negligence.
Although a successful wrongful death suit can’t bring the victim back, it can allow the victim’s loved ones to receive compensation for their loss.

Damages in a wrongful death suit can include loss of support, any medical and funeral expenses, and the loss of consortium.

The Dallas based law firms consist of attorneys that represent the deceased victim’s case, to ensure that the family receives a fair compensation to move on, however hard it may be.

What is Wrongful Death Law?

Wrongful death law applies in tort cases in which the defendant’s conduct has resulted in the death of the victim, leaving behind surviving family members and dependents who will suffer as a result of the victim’s absence. The purpose of these laws is to compensate the survivors, not the deceased victim. Wrongful death laws are found in modern state statutes. Time limits for filing suit, plaintiff qualifications, and permissible damages vary by state.

Most jurisdictions distinguish between wrongful death and a related claim known as a survivor action. Both causes of action serve the purpose of holding tortfeasors responsible for their conduct when the victim dies.

The difference is that wrongful death cases pay compensation to the victim’s family members for their own damages. They can recover for the loss of financial, emotional, and other support the victim had been contributing to the household.

When is a wrongful death claim applicable?

A wrongful death claim is applicable when a victim who would otherwise have a personal injury claim is killed as a result of either negligence or an intentional harmful act on the part of the defendant.

Who can file a wrongful death claim?

A wrongful death claim is usually filed by a representative of the estate of the deceased victim, on behalf of survivors who had a relationship with the victim.

In Dallas, a spouse may bring a wrongful death action, to the appointed lawyer, on behalf of his or her deceased spouse. Parents of minors may also bring a wrongful death action if one of their children is killed, and minors can collect compensation for the death of their parents.

Where states start to disagree is whether parents of adult children can sue, whether adult children can sue for wrongful death of their parents, whether grown siblings can sue for wrongful death, or whether extended relatives like cousins, aunts, uncles, or grandparents can sue. Usually, the more distant the familial relationship is, the harder it will be to show that you should be allowed to collect wrongful death damages.

Types of Common Wrongful Death Cases:

  1. Motor vehicle accidents: This is by far the most common cause of wrongful death. According to the most recent data available from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, there were a staggering 30,800 traffic fatalities in the US in 2012. Although there are some cases where neither driver in an accident can be found fully responsible, there are many more when someone who was driving recklessly-because they were distracted, fatigued, intoxicated, inexperienced, or impaired in any other way-caused the wrongful death of someone in their own vehicle or the occupants of another vehicle in the crash.
  2. Pedestrian accidents: Older adults and children are at a particularly high risk for being injured or killed in a pedestrian accident, although anyone can suffer from this type of accident. Common factors in pedestrian accidents include reckless driving, limited field of vision, and lack of pedestrian walkways.
  3. Medical malpractice: The most common allegation for medical malpractice is misdiagnosis or failure to diagnose a health issue, followed by surgery errors and treatment errors.
  4. Workplace accidents: While workplace fatalities are most common among manual-labor occupation groups, workplace accidents and deaths can occur even in a seemingly safe office.

The resulting compensation from a wrongful death suit varies but in most cases is greater than an average injury suit. The courts do take into account the suffering people go through after losing a loved one due to negligence.

Oftentimes it hurts more to lose a family member unnecessarily and therefore pain and suffering is awarded to families of the deceased. Other financial losses will also be considered such as hospitalizations as a result of the accident, doctor’s bills, loss of wages, future loss of wages and the cost of funeral services. Any financial loss, as well as pain and suffering, should be paid by the negligent parties.


Lundbeck: the EU General Court Endorses the Reasoning of the European Commission in Relation to Reverse Payment Settlements

I. Introduction

With the Lundbeck Decision, the European Commission (the “Decision” and the “Commission,” respectively) ended its ten-year investigation on reverse payment settlements and found that the Danish pharmaceutical company, Lundbeck, and four generics producers had concluded anticompetitive agreements, in breach of Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (the “TFEU”).[1]  According to the Commission, this would have allowed Lundbeck to keep the price of its drug citalopram artificially high and delay the entry of cheaper medicines into the EU market.[2]

On 8 September 2016, the EU General Court (the “General Court”) confirmed that certain pharmaceutical “reverse payment settlements” can constitute a breach of the EU antitrust rules (the “Ruling”).[3]  Under the so-called “reverse payment settlement agreements”, an original pharmaceutical manufacturer, or “originator”, settles an IP challenge from a manufacturer of generics by paying the latter to stay out of the market.

II. Background

Lundbeck is “a global pharmaceutical company specializing in psychiatric and neurological disorders”.[4] These include medicinal products for treating depression.[5]  From the late 1970s, Lundbeck developed and patented an antidepressant medicinal product containing the active ingredient citalopram’.[6]

After its basic patent for the citalopram molecule had expired, Lundbeck only held a number of the so-called “process” patents, which, according to the Commission, provided only “a more limited protection”.[7]  In particular, Lundbeck had filed a salt crystallisation process patent.[8]

According to the Commission, in 2002, Lundbeck concluded six agreements concerning citalopram with four entities active in the production or sale of generic medicinal products, namely Merck KGaA / Generics (UK), Alpharma, Arrow, and Ranbaxy.  Always according to the Commission, in return for the generic undertakings’ commitment not to enter the citalopram market, Lundbeck paid them substantial amounts.[9]  In addition, Lundbeck purchased stocks of generic products for the sole purpose of destroying them, and offered guaranteed profits in a distribution agreement.[10]

In October 2003, the Commission was informed of the existence of the agreements at issue by the Konkurrence- og Forbrugerstyrelsen (the “KFST”, the Danish authority for competition and consumers).[11]  The Commission took over the case and, by the decision of 19 June 2013, made the following findings:  (i) Lundbeck and the generic undertakings were at least potential competitors;[12] and (ii) the agreements at issue constituted restrictions of competition by object, in breach of the prohibition of anti-competitive agreements provided under Article 101 TFEU.[13]  The Commission imposed a total fine of €93.7 million on Lundbeck and € 52.2 million on the generic undertakings.  The Commission took into consideration the length of its investigation (almost ten years) as a mitigating circumstance which led to fine reductions of 10%.[14]  Lundbeck and the generic undertakings brought actions before the General Court, seeking the annulment of the Commission’s decision.  The Court dismissed the actions brought by Lundbeck and the generic undertakings and confirmed the fines imposed on them by the Commission.[15]

After the Lundbeck case, in 2013 and 2014, the Commission imposed fines on companies in two other reverse settlement investigations – one concerning fentanyl, a pain-killer[16], and the other concerning perindopril, a cardiovascular medicine.[17]  The Fentanyl decision was not appealed.  Several appeals against the Servier decision are pending before the General Court.[18]  In 2016, in the Paroxetine Investigation, the UK Competition and Market Authority (“CMA”) issued infringement decisions to a number of companies regarding ”pay-for-delay” agreements over the supply of an antidepressant.[19] These agreements were found to be an infringement by object and effect. In March 2017, the CMA issued a statement of objections relating to an agreement aimed at delaying the entry into the market for the supply of Hydrocortisone tablets. The CMA has not yet issued its final decision.[20]

In addition, since 2009, the Commission has been continuously monitoring patent settlements in order to identify settlements which it regards as “potentially problematic” from an antitrust perspective, namely those that limit generic entry against a value transfer from an originator to a generic company.  The latest report was published in December 2016.[21]

III. The Ruling

First, like the Commission, the Court analysed whether Lundbeck and the generic manufacturers concerned were indeed potential competitors at the time the agreements at issue were concluded.[22]  The General Court made the following findings in this regard:

In order for an agreement to restrict potential competition, it must be established that, had an agreement not been concluded, the competitors would have had “real concrete possibilities” of entering that market.[23]  The Court held that the Commission had carried out a careful examination, as regards each of the generic undertakings concerned, of the real concrete possibilities they had of entering the market.  In doing so, the Commission relied on evidence such as the investments already made and the steps taken in order to obtain a marketing authorisation[24]

Moreover, the Court noted that in general, the generic undertakings had several real concrete possibilities of entering the market at the time the agreements at issue were concluded.[25]  Those possible routes included, inter alia, launching the generic product with the possibility of having to face infringement proceedings brought by Lundbeck (i.e., the so-called launching ‘at risk’).[26]  More precisely, the General Court was of the view that “the presumption of validity cannot be equated with a presumption of illegality of generic products validly placed on the market which the patent holder deems to be infringing the patent”.[27]  Consequently, the Court, continued, “’at risk’ entry is not unlawful in itself”.[28]

As rightly noted by commentators, these considerations introduce a further layer of complexity in the already intricate relationship between EU Competition law and IP law. In addition, since the right to exclude lies at the core of any IP right and (if there is no competing product) to have a monopoly is not illegal, unless it is attained or maintained by improper means,[29] it can be argued that the Commission’s findings infringes Article 345 TFEU, according to which “[t]he Treaties shall not prejudice the rules in the Member States governing the system of property ownership”.  Thus, Ibañez Colomo has noted that “Lundbeck departs from the principle whereby an agreement is not restrictive by object where it remains within the substantive scope of an intellectual property right”.[30]  This principle would derive from the Erauw-Jacquery,[31] Coditel II,[32] BAT v. Commission[33] and Nungesser[34] rulings of the ECJ.  Ibañez Colomo’s point becomes particularly clear at para. 335 of the (Lundbeck) Ruling where the General Court expressly noted that “even if the restrictions set out in the agreements at issue fall within the scope of the Lundbeck patents – that is to say that the agreements prevented only the market entry of generic citalopram deemed to potentially infringe those patents by the parties to the agreements and not that of every type of generic citalopram – they would nonetheless constitute restrictions on competition ‘by object’ since, inter alia, they prevented or rendered pointless any type of challenge to Lundbeck’s patents before the national courts, whereas, according to the Commission, that type of challenge is part of normal competition in relation to patents (recitals 603 to 605, 625, 641 and 674)”.[35]

Second, the Court analysed whether the Commission was entitled to conclude that the agreements at issue constituted a restriction of competition by object, a point to which we will turn next.

IV. Conclusions:  On Reverse Payments as Restrictions of Competition by Object

The Lundbeck ruling brings a number of what Donald Rumsfeld would probably refer to as “known unknowns”, that is things we know we do not know, in relation to reverse payment settlements.[36]  Indeed, the findings of the Lundbeck ruling can be summarised as follows (see also the table below):

  1. There are certain patent settlements which are likely to be considered compatible with Article 101 TFEU. This is the case of settlements:a. In which, in the words of the General Court, “(i) payment is linked to the strength of the patent, as perceived by each of the parties; (ii) [payment] is necessary in order to find an acceptable and legitimate solution in the eyes of two parties and (iii) [payment] is not accompanied by restrictions intended to delay the market entry of generics”.[37]

    The inclusion of the word “and” is worrying.  The requirements set out in the preceding paragraph should be alternative and not cumulative.  Otherwise for a settlement to be lawful it must not delay entry (which probably is enough, in and of itself, to avoid the antitrust concern, namely, a delayed entry of generics) and it must be necessary (i.e., it probably needs to meet the requirements of an ancillary restraints defence, more on which below) and the payment might be linked to the strength of the patent “as perceived by each of the parties”.  Such an intrinsically subjective requirement appears to the writer as particularly complicated to administrate and at odds with the objective nature of Article 101(1) TFEU.  It would appear that the Court is encouraging conversations such as the following: “let’s settle, but only if we can ensure the settlement reflects (and comes across as reflecting) your and my perception of the strength of the patent (and a number of other cumulative requirements my lawyers and I need to meet), otherwise we might have an antitrust concern”.

    b. Qualifying for an ancillary restraints defence. e., settlements in relation to which the parties to the settlement (for the burden of proof will be on them) can demonstrate they are objectively necessary and proportionate in order to defend their IP rights.[38]

  1. There are certain patent settlements which are likely to be considered incompatible with Article 101 TFEU as restrictions of competition by object. The ruling is not particularly clear in this regard.a. A literal reading of paragraph 334 of Lundbeck could potentially make “problematic” each patent settlement “where they [provide] for the exclusion from the market of one of the parties, which was at the very least a potential competitor of the other party, for a certain period, and where they were accompanied by a transfer of value from the patent holder to the generic undertaking liable to infringe that patent (‘reverse payments’).”

    b. A more holistic reading of Lundbeck would confine the Commission’s finding to the facts of the case. Even though it is difficult to pinpoint what the court considered to be the decisive factors when stating that a reserve settlement constituted a restriction by object, the following factors appear to have been relevant:

    1. The allegedly “disproportionate nature” of such payments “combined with other factors, such as the fact that the amounts of those payments seemed to correspond at least to the profit anticipated by the generic undertaking”.[39] Referring to the US Supreme Court ruling in Actavis,[40] the Court indicated that “the size of a reverse payment may constitute an indicator of the strength or weakness of a patent”.[41]  According to the Commission “the higher the originator undertaking estimates the chance of its patent being found invalid or not infringed, and the higher the damage to the originator undertaking resulting from successful generic entry, the more money it will be willing to pay the generic undertaking to avoid that risk”.[42]
    2. Indeed, the correspondence between the amount of the payment that seemed and the profit anticipated by the generic undertakings if they had entered the market.[43] According to the Commission “the value which Lundbeck transferred, took into consideration the turnover or profit the generic undertaking expected if it had successfully entered the market”. [44]
    3. The absence of provisions allowing the generic undertakings to launch their product on the market upon the expiry of the agreement without having to fear infringement actions brought by Lundbeck.[45]
    4. The presence in those agreements of restrictions going beyond the scope of Lundbeck’s patents,[46] such as restrictions with regard to citalopram products that could have been produced in a non-infringing manner.[47]
    5. According to the Court, “the agreement at issue transformed the uncertainty in relation to the outcome of such litigation into the certainty that the generics would not enter the market which may also constitute a restriction on competition by object when such limits do not result from an assessment, by the parties of the merits of the exclusive right at issue, but rather from the size of the reverse payment which, in such case, overshadows that assessment and induces the generic undertaking not to pursue its independent efforts to enter the market”.[48] The generics thus no longer had an incentive to continue their independent efforts to enter the market.[49]
  1. There are certain patent settlements which (presumably) are considered to be incompatible with Article 101 TFEU as restrictions of competition by their effects. Hic sunt dracones.  More precisely, given that none of the pay-for-delay decisions dealt with by the  Commission conducted an effects analysis, we are left without guidance as to how that analysis will be conducted.  Again, a known unknown.  The Commission’s ten-year investigation on reverse payment settlements has not shed light to how to conduct an effects analysis under Article 101(1) TFEU.  We are left, perhaps, with the findings of the US Supreme Court in Actavis, according to which, “the likelihood of a reverse payment bringing about anticompetitive effects depends upon its size, its scale in relation to the payer’s anticipated future litigation costs, its independence from other services for which it might represent payment and the lack of any other convincing justification.  The existence and degree of any anticompetitive consequences may also vary among industries”.[50]

Moreover, to the extent that the case for restrictions of competition by object is administrability, this author cannot but note that the Lundbeck ruling does not constitute a positive evolution.  The General Court noted that “it is established that certain collusive behaviour […] may be considered so likely to have negative effects, in particular on the price, quantity or quality of the goods and services, that it may be considered redundant, for the purposes of applying Article 101 TFEU to prove that they have actual effects on the market”.[51]  However, the Decision has 464 pages.  Given that the Fentanyl and Servier decisions occupy 147 and 813 pages, respectively, in investigations that lasted for almost ten years, 27 months and 5 years (again, respectively), one cannot but wonder whether the Commission’s resources would have been better spent analysing the actual effects of the agreement and not defending a legal category.


   [1]   Commission Decision C(2013) 3803 of 19 June 2013 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 [TFEU] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement, Case AT.39226 — Lundbeck (the “Decision”).
   [2]   See European Commission Press Release IP/13/563, of 19 June 2013, available at
   [3]   See T-472/13 Lundbeck v. Commission [NYR] (the “Ruling”), of 8 September 2016.
   [4]   See, for more detail,
   [5]   See Ruling, at para. 1.
   [6]   See Ruling, at para. 16.
   [7]   See European Commission Press Release IP/13/563, 19 June 2013, available at  It should be recalled, in this regard, that, according to Article 27 of the TRIPS (WTO) Agreement, “patents shall be available for any inventions, whether products or processes, in all fields of technology, provided that they are new, involve an inventive step and are capable of industrial application“.
   [8]   See Ruling, at para. 20.
   [9]   See Ruling, at paras. 26; 35; 39; 42-43 and 47-48.
  [10]   See Ruling, at para. 26; 35; 39; 42-43; 47-48.
  [11]   See Danish Competition and Consumer Authority Press Release 1120-0289-0039/VIS/SEK, 28 January 2004 , available at: (Only available in Danish)
  [12]   See Decision at paras. 610 ff.
  [13]   See Decision at paras. 647 ff.
  [14]   See Decision, at paras. 1306, 1349 and 1380.
  [15]   See Ruling, Operative part.
  [16]   See European Commission Press Release IP/13/1233, Commission fines Johnson & Johnson and Novartis € 16 million for delaying market entry of generic pain-killer fentanyl, 10 December 2013, available at:
  [17]   See European Commission Press Release IP/14/799, 9 July 2014, Commission fines Servier and five generic companies for curbing entry of cheaper versions of cardiovascular medicine, available at:
  [18]   See Case T-147/00 Laboratoires Servier v Commission.
  [19]   See Case CE/9531-11 Paroxetine, 12 February 2016.  For a comment on the case see Ezrachi, A., EU Competition Law: An Analytical Guide to the Leading Cases, 5th Edition, Bloomsbury, 2016, 396
  [20]   See CMA Press Release of 3 March 2017, available at: See also Nathalie Ska, Philipp Werner, and Christian Paul, “Pay-for-delay Agreements: Why the EU Should Judge them by their Effects,  Oxford Journal of European Competition Law & Practice, 3 May 2017.
  [21]   See, European Commission, “7th Report on the Monitoring of Patent Settlements (period: January-December 2015)”, 13 December 2016, available at:
  [22]   See Ruling.  The General Court separately analysed each agreement.  See, inter alia, in relation to Lundbeck and Merck, para. 225; in relation to Lundbeck and Arrow, paras. 266-270, in relation to Lundbeck and Alpharma, para. 290 and, in relation to Lundbeck and Ranbaxy, para. 330.
  [23]   See Ruling, at para. 100.  See further Case T-360/90 E.ON Ruhrgas and E.ON v Commission, at para. 86.
  [24]   See Ruling, at para. 131.
  [25]   See Ruling, at para. 97.  See further Decision, at para. 635.
  [26]   See Ruling, at paras. 121.
  [27]   See Ruling, at paras. 97.
[28]   See Ruling, at para. 122.
  [29]   See David J. Teece and Edward F. Sherry, “On patent monopolies: An economic re-appraisal”, CPI Antitrust Chronicle April 2017, available at:
  [30]   See Ibañez Colomo, P., “GC Judgment in Case T-472/13, Lundbeck v Commission: on patents and Schrödinger’s cat”, at Chillin’ Competition, 13 September 2016, available at
  [31]   See Case 27/87 SPRL Louis Erauw-Jacquery v La Hesbignonne SC, of 19 April 1988.
  [32]   See Case 262/81 Coditel SA, Compagnie generale pour la diffusion de la television, and others v Cine-Vog Films SA and others, of 6 October 1982.
  [33]   See Case 35/83 BAT Cigaretten-Fabriken GmbH v Commission, of 30 January 1985.
  [34]   See Case 258/78 Nungesser v Commission, of 8 June 1982.
  [35]   See Ruling, at paragraph 335.
  [36]   See Rumsfeld, D., Known Unknown:  A Memoir, Sentinel, 2011.
  [37]   See Ruling, at para. 350.
  [38]   See Ruling, at paras. 451 ff, in particular, at paras. 458 and 460.
  [39]   See Ruling, at paras. 354; 355.
  [40]   See Federal Trade Commission v. Actavis, 570 US (2013).
  [41]   See Ruling, at paragraph 353.
  [42]   See Decision, at para. 640.
  [43]   See Ruling, at paras. 354; 383; 414.
  [44]   See Decision, at paras. 6; 788; 824; 874; 962; 1013; 1087.
  [45]   See Ruling, at paras. 354; 383; 410.
  [46]   See Ruling, at paras. 354; 383.
  [47]   See Decision para. 693.
  [48]   See Ruling, at para. 336.
[49]   See Ruling, at paras. 355; 360.
  [50]   See Federal Trade Commission v Actavis 570 US 2013.
  [51]   See Ruing, at para. 341.

Top 10 tips when preparing for CQC (Care Quality Commission) inspection

All providers of health and social care in England should be aware of the legal requirement to register with the Care Quality Commission (CQC). However, how well prepared is your organisation for the pending inspection to ensure you are providing care in accordance with the CQC’s standards and regulations? The following tips will help you in the run up to a visit from the inspectors.

1. Be aware of the different types of inspection

On the day of the inspection, the inspector will inform you of which type of inspection will be carried out. These are:
1) Responsive – in response to specific concerns
2) Themed – looking at current issues of a specific theme
3) Scheduled – Booked in advance for certain kinds of service, where the inspectors inform you of the type of inspection to be carried out.

2. Notify CQC of any changes or incidents

You must tell CQC about certain changes, events and incidents affecting your service or its beneficiaries. This can be done via the Provider Portal (your online account) or by using forms to submit, available from

3. Ensure you have up to date information

Current and correct information demonstrates your compliance and expertise. Some items such health and safety documents and business continuity plans will be requested on the day of the inspection.

4. Ensure you have the Registered Manager’s contact details

When you registered, you should have provided the Registered Manager’s contact details. It is essential to have these to hand in case this person is not available at the start of the inspection.

5. Make all service users and staff aware of what happens during an inspection

Inspectors will talk to various staff members during their visit to collect evidence, as well as observe care and review people’s records to see how their needs are managed.

6. Book and prepare a suitable room

The inspectors must have access to a suitable room for interviews and so forth.

7. Remember what inspectors will be looking for

Inspectors will actually be collecting evidence of any essential standards that are not being met, so closely look at the standards beforehand.

8. Have a practice walkthrough

The service manager or deputy should take responsibility to walk through all areas of your services. Keep a checklist of these to stay on track.

9. Ensure that you carry on with your everyday services

In order for inspectors to look at what you do, you must continue carrying out your services as normal on the day of the inspection.

10. Always bear in mind the key five questions of the inspection

Are your services Safe; Effective; Caring; Responsive to People’s Needs; and Well-led?

This last point is an essential one which relates to complying with the ever important CQC’s standards. However, do take into account all the tips here to make sure that your service is inspection-ready.

Debunking Myths about Personal Injury

A personal injury attorney is always considered as the first person to turn to when involved in an accident that causes an injury to you.

In any case when you are involved in such injuries, getting the right personal injury lawyer would be the most ideal option to help you take the necessary action against the person responsible for the injury. There are however many misconceptions and myths around this subject.

Getting a personal injury attorney who understands personal injury law and that knows the existence of these myths will effectively guide you through each step of the legal process involved. Though your legal representative can help you to claim for compensation in various personal injury incidents, many people only understand personal injury claims from the mythical point of it. In law however, you need to understand that facts are what matters and not the opinions or myths spread out there. Below are some of the most common myths about personal injury claims.

  • Personal injury claims are simply a waste of time due to the complication of the legal process. The truth however is that guided by a personal injury attorney that is experienced and knowledgeable in the industry will help you get compensated in a shorter time than you can imagine. Other cases do take a really short time for instance if the person you are claiming compensation from admits to be responsible straight away.
  • All personal injury cases are settled in court- this is another misconception that many people have. With the help of a personal injury attorney, you can easily be awarded your compensation without having to go to court. This kind of settlement is fast and preferable by many people because it is also cheap.
  • You can claim huge compensation amounts for your personal injury- though this is true to some extent it is a myth spread out there. The truth is that personal injury settlement of claims is based on various factors to determine the amount to be compensated. The extent of injury is all that is used to determine the amount of compensation.
  • Compensation culture has led to failure of many personal injury cases- do not be lied to you that making claims that are not genuine could help you cash money from the person you are holding the claim against. Having a genuine claim as a result of illnesses and physical injuries will have you case listened to and sufficient compensation awarded.
  • Personal injury attorneys are ambulance chasers- this is a common myth in the legal industry. But the truth is that sustaining a personal injury as a result of someone else’s negligence is considered ground for lawsuit and fair compensation. You therefore need not be discouraged to seek a professional injury attorney to help you in the legal process. Legal attorneys will help you not to lose a genuine case or not to receive your fair compensation.
  • Refusing an out of court settlement will earn you better compensation- holding out has been considered to be a smart way to net better settlement but the truth is far from this myth. Do not count your accident as a way to make money from the other party; you only need to represent legitimate claims in court and sufficient settlement will be awarded just as it could have if you agreed to settle the matter out of court. Give negotiations out of court a chance provided you have a personal injury lawyer that understands perfectly how the legal system works in such cases as the one you are involved in.
  • All personal injury claims result in compensation- filing a personal injury case is never a guarantee that you will be compensated. Filing the claim is one thing and winning the case is another totally different one. Presented facts are what determine if you will be compensated or not. You therefore need to have genuine claims. Also remember that the insurance companies will be battling it out not to pay the compensation. Talking to your personal injury attorney may be ideal to help you in battling out the case if it goes to court.
  • Most personal injury claims are not legitimate- I bet you have seen a number of people saying that many people involved in accidents are filing frivolous lawsuits. The truth is that many of these individuals are genuine and legitimately filing to get compensation for the injuries sustained.

Other common myths that exist in personal injury litigation involve limitation and many personal injury attorneys have been made to believe in them. Some of the misconceptions include;

  • The limitation period is six years in a breach of contract case
  • Personal injury limitation is three years
  • If the client is a patient then the limitation period cannot run
  • Limitation period for a fatal accident is three years after the death

Checking out reputable websites such Find Lawl can help you a great deal to find an experienced lawyer to take you through each process of a lawsuit.

Get the Right Advice from an EB-5 Immigration Attorney

In 1990, the Congress initiated the EB5 green card program. The objective was to add more jobs to the United States market which in turn would help boost the economy. This program was first implemented in the year 1992 and since that time, it has been reauthorized as well. This particular visa is granted to individuals that want to invest in commercial enterprises in America and are able to create a minimum of 10 jobs via this investment. This program is beneficial not just to immigrants, but to US citizens too.

How to get an EB-5 Green Card

Careful planning and a significant amount of investment required for this visa, because you will be launching a commercial venture on foreign land. It’s important that you be aware of all the conditions and laws related to this visa before you actually make any investment.

The best course of action would be to consult with an experienced EB-5 Immigration Attorney.This professional will help you understand the entire process and follow the right procedures, which increases your chances of being granted this visa. Some things to keep in view are:

• Eligibility – There are very specific and stringent measures in place. Even if you are willing to make the investment and launch a business in the US, you would have to provide 100% disclosure of your financial situation. Once you get accreditation, you can then invest in the commercial enterprise of your choice.

You have the option to either start your own venture or invest in a business owned by someone else. The business you are invested in should operate within the framework of US laws. You would also have to create 10, full-time, permanent jobs for employees in the US and your direct investment should be $1,000,000 or above.

• Investment Options – The EB-5 Immigration Attorney you consult will provide you solutions and advice based on your circumstances, budget, and preferences. Most experienced immigration attorneys have a list of good investment opportunities for immigrants that are seeking an EB-5 visa.

You have the option to look for investment opportunities on your own as well. Put in some time and energy into investigating various business opportunities before you invest in any venture.

There are a number of benefits to opting for an EB-5 visa but it’s important that you get the right advice from an expert professional. Once you get this visa, you will enjoy all the benefits and rights that a US resident enjoys. You also get the freedom to work anywhere within the US as well as acquire US citizenship for five years.

Hiring the services of an EB-5 immigration attorney will smooth the path and improve your chances of getting this visa and realizing your dream of living in the US and setting up a business there. Aside from meeting the eligibility criteria, getting the paperwork right is very important and a good attorney will help you with all these different aspects.

How Much Does It Cost To Hire A Child Custody Lawyer In Fort Worth?

Hiring a child custody lawyer usually seems as a daunting task and for sure it is, especially if the right procedure is not followed.

On the other hand, finding out how much it is going to cost to hire a professional child custody lawyer is another hurdle you will have to contend with. The truth however is that there is quite a number of factors that will determine the cost of hiring a child support attorney according to cost owl

Here is Tips to determine how to calculate fort worth child custody lawyer cost and hiring process.

  • Experience of the child custody lawyer

Depending with the level of experience of the child custody lawyer you choose, more experienced lawyers will most likely tend to be expensive than the freshly graduated or certified legal professionals. Many people usually prefer the services of professional lawyers with some years of experience but that has to come at a fee; you will have to pay higher fees.

  • Your location

Depending with your residence in relation with the location of the lawyer determines the fees charged by the lawyer. While it is important to consider hiring only the professionally experienced professionals, going for one that is located far away from you might simply mean extra charges since the lawyer has to travel longer distances and that means extra charges.

Going for local directories and online sites that help you to narrow down your search to the right legal professionals may seem as a better option, but all the same it is crucial to seek help from a lawyer who comes from your locality so as to keep communication regarding the specific case you are dealing with.

  • Complexity of the custody issues

In case you are intending to hire a professional Fort Worth child custody lawyer, you need to understand the kind of complexity involved in the case. Complex cases obviously tend to be a little bit expensive compared to other cases.

When child custody cases are involved in a divorce case, usually the family lawyer of your choice gets to go through the details of the case and advice accordingly so that you exactly understand what is needed of you to get the situation under control.

  • Type of practice

There are different professionals out there and each demand for a different fee.  Professionals out there are passionate about their work but their area of specialization dictates the fees they can charge for every case they handle.

Why do you need to hire a child custody lawyer anyway?

Child custody is basically filed when the divorcing parents cannot agree on the child custody agreement. This is where an emergency child custody lawyer comes in to help salvage the situation in handling such issues of contention like;

  • The type of custody whether joint or sole
  • Who will be responsible for all legal decisions as pertains to education, health and religion for the children
  • Visitation schedules
  • Living plans
  • How contact with other family members and friends will be managed
  • Who gets the physical custody of the children?
  • How possible changes can be made to the current agreements in the future

Mostly, in case both spouses have opted for a child support lawyer, it is important that the parties involved resolve on working together to settle the issues through an out of court negotiation which both parties will be comfortable with. Once the agreement is reached between the parties involved, the agreement is presented to a judge for approval.

Other out of court negotiation strategies like mediation are also quite common where a neutral third party is chosen to facilitate non-confrontational talks between the involved parties so as to settle down the custody issues that may be available.

In case this strategy also fails to yield resultsArticle Submission, the child custody cases are then taken to full trial before a judge in a court of law and the facts argued out to determine who gets the custody of the children among other things.

The judge’s decision is considered paramount though it is also subject to an appeal from either party. The custody case is usually determined in the best interest of the children rather than both of the parents.

Child Custody lawyer average costs

Despite the fact that the cost of child custody is determined by the factors mentioned the average cost of hiring a child custody lawyer is usually held at approximately 100-500 dollars. This is amount is not subject to other charges such as transport for long distance attorneys and their professional qualifications.

Duties Of Directors Under Cyprus Companies Law

Cyprus Companies Law (Cap. 113) provides that every private company shall have at least one director and every public company shall have at least two directors (s.170). Furthermore, every company must have a secretary and a sole director shall not be also secretary. However, in the case of a single-member private liability company the sole director can be also the company secretary (s.171).

According to section 174 of Cap.113, the acts of a director or manager are valid notwithstanding any defect which may afterwards be discovered in his/her appointment or qualification. Since directors have powers to take important decisions several duties are imposed on them so that to guarantee that the companies’ interests are well-protected.

Duties of Directors:
a.Fiduciary Duty
b.Duty to exercise skill and care
c.Statutory Duties

It should be clarified that there is no difference in principle between executive, non-executive or nominee directors. Have in mind that the duties owed by the Directors are owed to the company and not to individual shareholders.

Fiduciary Duty:
According to the Law, a Director owes a duty to the company to act in good faith in the best interests of the company. This duty is known as the ‘fiduciary duty’. In other words, the director is obliged to promote the profitability of the company and protect company’s interest.

The principal duty of the director is to act in the best interests of the company as a whole, and that is usually taken to denote the interest of shareholders both present and future.

In practice, the fiduciary duty can be explained as follows:
1.Directors shall act in good faith in what they consider to be the interests of the company.
2.Directors must act in accordance with company’s constitution, i.e. the memorandum of articles and association, and shall exercise their powers only for the purposes allowed by law.
3.Directors must not use company property, information or opportunity for their own or anyone else’s interest, unless allowed to by the company’s constitution or in particular cases where such use has been disclosed to the company in general meeting and the company has approved it.
4.Directors shall not agree to restrict their powers to exercise an independent judgement. Nevertheless, if they consider in good faith that this it is in the interests of the company for a transaction to be entered into, they may restrict their powers to exercise an independent judgement by agreeing to act in a precise way to attain this.
5.In case there is a conflict between directors’ interests or duties and the interests of the company, then directors are obliged to account to the company for any benefit they receive from the transaction. Nonetheless, directors are not obliged to account for the benefit if they are allowed to have that interest by company’s constitution, or the interest has been disclosed and approved by the company in general meeting.
6.Directors must act fairly as between the members of the company.
7.In the course of a winding up of a company it appears that directors continue to allow a company to incur credit even though they knew or ought to have known that the company had no reasonable prospect of paying, then following the sections 307 and 312 of Cap.113, they may become personally liable for that credit unless they can prove that they have taken every step, in order to minimise and/or eliminate the possible loss.

Duty to exercise skill and care:

The modern approach to the duty of care is defined in Re D’ Jan of London Limited [1993] B.C.C. 646, a leading English company law case related to directors’ duty of care. ‘The conduct of: a reasonably diligent person means a person having both (a) the general knowledge, skill and experience that may reasonably be expected of a person carrying out the same functions as carried out by that director in relation to the company, and (b) the general knowledge, skill and experience that that director has’.

However, the absence of clear authority makes it difficult to define exactly what the above definition entails. The first part of the definition indicates an ‘objective’ or a ‘benchmark’ test of what ‘the reasonable person’ might expect of a director in specific circumstances. The second part of the test requires that in case that particular director has a particular skill or level of experience, then he/she is obliged to exercise that particular skill in addition to the benchmark test.

Statutory Duties:
Directors have several statutory duties imposed by the Companies Law and other legislation, i.e. the Income Tax, VAT, Customs& Excise Legislation, Health and Safety, and Environmental legislation.

The statutory liabilities imposed under the Companies Law to directors regarding the company, its shareholder or to the public are:
•Register of Directors and Secretary (s. 192);
•Register of Directors interests (s. 187);
•Disclosure of payment for loss of office made in connection with transfer of shares in company (s.185);
•Disclosure of interests in contracts (s.191);
•Loans to directors (s. 188-189);
•Prospectus offers (s.31-.39);
•Pre-emption rights /Transfer of shares (s.71 – 82);
•Fraudulent trading (s.311);
•Profit and loss account and balance sheet (s.142);
•Falsification of books or destroying company documents (s.308);
•Duties antecedent to or in course of winding up (s.207, s. 213);
•Directors report and annual return (s.151);
•Financial Statement available for review and investigation (s 141);

Have in mind that:
Pursuant to Companies Law, breach of director’s duties is a criminal offence with penalties ranging from a default fine to two years imprisonment. Moreover, the directors are liable to personally compensate the company in respect of any loss caused by the breach of their duties. Regarding tax-related offences, directors may be liable for prosecution by the Inland Revenue or Customs& Excise Department.