On 17 April 2019, the High Court ruled on the extent to which factual findings of the General Court of the European Union are binding on claimants in follow-on damages actions before UK national courts. This case concerns damages claims against Servier, following the European Commission’s 2014 infringement decision, which found that Servier had abused a dominant position and entered ‘pay for delay’ agreements with rivals. The General Court partially annulled  that decision late last year, finding that the Commission defined the product market too narrowly and therefore erred in treating Servier as dominant. Servier argued that the General Court’s ruling prevented the claimants from disputing the extent of competition between Servier’s perindopril treatment and other drugs (which remained relevant for damages arising from the ‘pay for delay’ infringements). The High Court disagreed, stating that only findings of fact that are “inseparable from, and necessary to explain, the operative part” of the General Court judgment are treated as settled under the doctrine of ‘res judicata’. The doctrine does not apply to the other “myriad factual findings” and “subsidiary conclusions”. Therefore, the General Court’s judgment did not prevent the claimants from disputing the extent of competition between perindopril and other drugs in the follow-on litigation.