in JD Supra European Union › Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP
in vLex European Union

38 results for JD Supra European Union › Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP

  • August 2020: EU Litigation Update

    “Pay-for-Delay” Settlements Contrary to EU Competition Law - In the pharmaceutical industry, the term “pay-for-delay” has attracted attention from the business and legal communities for years. However, the legality of the position in Europe remained uncertain for quite some time due to the lack of a precedent-setting verdict from the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU).

  • August 2020: EU Countries Sign Intra-EU BIT Termination Agreement, Ushering in Brave New World of Investor-State Dispute Settlement on the European Continent

    On 5 May 2020, all EU Member States (except Ireland, Sweden, Finland and Austria) concluded the Agreement for the Termination of Bilateral Investment Treaties between the Member States of the European Union (the “Termination Agreement”). As its name suggests, this agreement purports to put an end to all bilateral investment treaties (“BITs”) between its signatories.

  • July 2020: Antitrust & Competition Update

    Commencement of Limitation and Notice of a Potential Cartel Damages Claim Under English Law - The recent judgment of the High Court in London, Granville Technology Group Limited (In Liquidation) & Ors v. Infineon Technologies AG & Micron Europe Limited, [2020] EWHC (Comm) 415, which was cited soon after with approval by the Court of Appeal in DSG and Dixons v. Mastercard, [2020]

  • No Arms Race For National Champions – State Aid During Covid-19 Measures

    The adverse economic impact of the Covid-19 pandemic has led to many European Union Member States to introduce support measures for businesses. If a Member State grants support that confers a selective advantage on some businesses or sectors (i.e., it is not of general application), and is liable to distort competition in the internal market, the measure may entail State aid within the meaning of

  • October 2019: EU Litigation Update

    Metall auf Metall – 20 years of litigation over the sampling of two seconds, but no end in sight? Introduction - More than 20 years of litigation.  Already eight court decisions.  Hamburg, Karlsruhe, Brussels back and forth.  But no resolution so far.  And why?  Because of the sampling of two seconds!

  • EU Competition Law Development: Interim Injunctive Relief Back on the Menu

    On 16 October 2019, for the first time in many years, the European Commission granted injunctive relief (known as “interim measures”) against a company that is being investigated for infringing European competition law. This is an important development, because it shows that the Commission is testing whether this long-unused tool is fit for purpose in fast moving, dynamic situations (often in...

  • March 2019: EU Litigation Practice Update

    Legal Professional Privilege under European Union Law. The scope of legal professional privilege when antitrust investigations are conducted by the European Commission (“EC”), most notably in relation to merger control, cartels and abuse of market dominance, (“EU LPP”) is very different from that applicable in, e.g., the USA. LPP is under discussion at OECD level and the European Commission’s...

  • October 2018: ICSID Arbitration Victory: First Award Rejecting Achmea on Intra-EU BIT Case

    A team led by Quinn Emanuel partner Isabelle Michou from our Paris office achieved a ground-breaking victory for UP (formerly Cheque Dejeuner) in an ICSID arbitration against Hungary. In this case, an international arbitral tribunal ruled for the first time that the Achmea decision rendered by the European Court of Justice (ECJ) cannot defeat the jurisdiction of a tribunal constituted under an...

  • August 2018: EU Litigation Update

    Improved Judicial Review of EU Commission Decisions? The record of success in challenging EU Commission (EC) Article 102 infringement decisions in recent years has been woeful especially since the EU General Court’s 2007 judgment in Microsoft v. Commission. The contrast with the judicial record on appeals against decisions under the EU Merger Regulation or Article 101, is striking.

  • June 2018: Energy Litigation Update

    The EU’s Bid to Regulate Russia’s Nord Stream 2. The EU has for some time sought to impose its rules in the Third Energy Package (the “TEP”) on third country pipelines entering the EU. These rules cover such matters as unbundling (which requires the separation of network ownership from production and transportation of gas), transparency of network capacity, non-discriminatory third party access,...

  • May 2018: GDPR and the Extra-Territorial Reach of EU Privacy Law: Are You at Risk of Fines of 4% of Global Turnover?

    On May 25, 2018 the European Union (“EU”) General Data Protection Regulation (“GDPR”) will take effect, marking one of the most significant changes to European data privacy and security in over 20 years. Most multinational companies will be impacted by the GDPR and compliance will be an ongoing matter for anyone collecting and/or processing personal data in the EU and/or offering goods or...

  • March 2018: EU Litigation Update

    The CJEU’s Coty Judgment Provides Guidance on Online Platform Bans for the Distribution of Luxury Goods and Beyond. On December 6 2017, the Court of Justice of the European Union (“CJEU”) adopted its longawaited ruling in Case C-230/16, Coty Germany GmbH v. Parfümerie Akzente GmbH (“Coty”). The Coty judgment clarified that a prohibition imposed by suppliers of luxury goods on the members of their

  • January 2018: Cybersecurity and Privacy Law: What Is the European General Data Protection Regulation and What Does It Mean for Companies Doing Business in Europe?

    Background - A new data protection framework, the General Data Protection Regulation (“GDPR”), goes into effect in the European Union on May 25, 2018, replacing the Data Protection Directive 95/46/EC (“Directive”). See Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of April 27, 2016 (“GDPR”).

  • December 2017: Antitrust & Competition Update

    Intel Judgment Hinting at EU Departure from Per Se Treatment for Loyalty Rebates Highlights Continued Difference in EU/US Approaches to Market Power. On September 6, 2017 the Court of Justice of the European Union set aside a judgement by the General Court which had upheld a EUR 1.06 billion fine imposed by the European Commission on microchip manufacturer Intel for abusing its dominant position...

  • December 2017: English Fraud Litigation: Weapons of Mass Destruction

    Imagine if you could have your opponent’s premises searched, his Gmail, Hotmail, and Yahoo accounts secretly monitored, his assets frozen, his passport seized, and even have him arrested and imprisoned – all before trial.

  • EU Litigation Update - September 2017

    Germany: Expanding Liability for Patent Infringement to Extra-Territorial Acts. In a recent decision, the German Supreme Court (“Bundesgerichtshof”) expanded the liability for patent infringement of a foreign company selling infringing goods to its customers outside of Germany (judgment of May 16, 2017, case no. X ZR 120/15 – Abdichtsystem).

  • March 2017: EU Litigation Update

    Asserting Standard Essential Patents in Germany After the European Court of Justice’s Huawei v. ZTE Decision. In its Huawei v. ZTE decision (C-170/13) dated July 16, 2015, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) established a new legal basis for the owners of standard essential patents (SEP) for obtaining injunctive relief against an infringer without abusing their market dominant position under Art.

  • [Event] Recent Developments in EU Antitrust Enforcement - Jan. 17th, Silicon Valley - Jan. 18th, San Francisco - Jan. 19th, Los Angeles

    This seminar will address key antitrust and competition issues affecting the European market now.

  • September 2016: EU Litigation Update

    Brexit, Jurisdiction, and Choice of Law: Plus Ça Change? For lawyers schooled in the idioms of Brexit, there is, in addition to the so-called “four freedoms” (for the free movement of goods, services, people and capital throughout the Member States of the European Union), a fifth freedom to consider: the free movement of judgments. Has the United Kingdom’s vote to leave the EU put that freedom at

  • April 2016: EU Litigation Update

    Asserting Standard Essential Patents (SEP) in Europe After the European Court of Justice’s Huawei v. ZTE Decision. In its Huawei v. ZTE decision (C-170/13) of July 16, 2015, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) set out a new framework under which the owner of a standard essential patent (SEP) can seek injunctive relief against an infringer without abusing a dominant position under Art. 102 TFEU....

  • Article: Safe Harbor No More: Navigating Unchartered Waters After the European Court of Justice Ruled the European Commission’s Seminal Decision on U.S. Privacy Safe Harbor Invalid

    Not surprisingly, different governments and regulatory bodies have different views on how to strike the right balance as to the protection of the individual’s right to privacy (especially personal data), the facilitation of international commerce, and national security initiatives, and this was all too apparent in the Court of Justice of the European Union’s recent decision in Schrems v. Data...

  • November 2015: EU Litigation Update

    Damages Based Agreements—Latest Developments. The United Kingdom has historically been averse to straight contingency based fee arrangements between clients and their lawyers, believing these led inevitably to conflicts of interest. It took until 1990 for statutory provision to be made for conditional fee arrangements (CFA), whereby a discount on standard rates may be given in exchange for an...

  • EU Litigation Update - June 2015

    Recognition and Enforcement of Arbitral Awards in Russia: Recent Developments. Recent decisions concerning the enforcement of international arbitration awards in Russian courts have yielded mixed results. Russian courts have limited arbitrability by determining that disputes pertaining to two different types of contracts with a public element were not arbitrable. It is hoped that these new...

  • Further encouragement for private enforcement of competition law: European Courts allow greater information about cartel conduct to be released in to the public domain

    The details regarding cartel conduct contained in the decisions of the European Commission and national competition authorities are highly relevant to the follow-on cartel damages litigation that are now so common in Europe. Until recently, cartelists have generally been able to persuade the European Commission to take an expansive view of what information should be treated as confidential and...

  • Newsletter: January 2015

    In This Issue: - Main Article: ..EC Competition Law: Latest Developments Provide Ever Greater Opportunities for Private Enforcement - Noted With Interest: ..The Strategy of Lone Pine Orders: Timing Matters - Practice Area Notes: ..Insurance Litigation Update ..EU Litigation Update

  • January 2015: EU Litigation Update

    Second Helping—The EPO’s Enlarged Board of Appeals Hears Tomatoes/Broccoli II. On October 27, 2014 the Enlarged Board of Appeals of the European Patent Office (EBoA) heard the two appeals against the Opposition Division’s decisions to allow product claims on certain types of tomatoes and broccolis (G 2/12 and G 2/13) following the referrals made in both instances by the respective Technical...

  • EC Competition Law: Latest Developments Provide Ever Greater Opportunities for Private Enforcement

    The private enforcement of competition law within the EU continues its inexorable rise and plaintiff opportunities abound. Small and medium size businesses throughout Europe are joining larger companies in initiating proceedings relating to all manner of products and services. The European Commission, as well as national competition authorities, are showing an ever greater appetite for...

  • Multi-Jurisdictional Enforcement of Judgments

    With more cross-border trade and foreign investments, businesses may find themselves in more disputes with counterparties before foreign courts or in international arbitration. Where a party chooses—or the parties’ contract requires—litigation in a foreign court, it may obtain a final judgment for money damages from the foreign court. However, that court judgment may not end the dispute. The...

  • April 2014: EU Litigation Update

    License Agreements Under Scrutiny—A New Challenge for Non-Challenge Clauses. In general, license agreements are deemed pro-competitive. Licensing leads to the dissemination of technology and promotes (follow on) innovation (cf. European Commission Regulation on Technology Transfer Agreements of 27 April 2004, para 5).

  • World Class: The International Proliferation of Class Actions

    A group expected to number in the millions sues Google for alleged privacy violations. Tourists sue a travel operator for putting them up in accommodations inferior to what was promised. 1700 plaintiffs seek damages for the meltdown of a nuclear power plant. These sound like the everyday stuff of the class action system in the United States, but these actions were brought in the U.K., Italy, and...

  • Request a trial to view additional results