On November 25, 2020, the FCA chose to depart from its long-standing decisional practice on intra- group bidding.[1] Following the European Court of Justice’s ruling in Ecoservice projektai,[2] the FCA concluded that intra-group bids to tenders no longer fall within the ambit of competition law.

On November 20, 2020, at the request of Sisvel International Group (“Sisvel”), the Federal Court of Justice (“FCJ”) granted a preliminary injunction against Chinese mobile phone manufacturer Haier Corporation Group (“Haier”).[1] The injunction is another victory for Sisvel in its patent disputes with Haier following a preliminary injunction issued in May 2020.[2] The FCJ used the recent decision as an opportunity to further elaborate on the obligations of patent holders and potential patentees under the Huawei/ZTE jurisprudence of the Court of Justice of the European Union (“CJEU”).[3]

On November 18, 2020, the General Court dismissed an appeal by AB Lietuvos geležinkeliai (“Lithuanian Railways”) against a 2017 Commission decision which found that the company had abused its dominant position on the Lithuanian rail freight market by removing a stretch of track connecting Latvia and Lithuania (the “short route”). The Commission found that the conduct prevented one of Lithuanian Railways’ major customers, the Polish stated-owned oil company AB Orlen Lietuva (“Orlen”), from switching transportation services to rival Latvian Railways.[1] The Commission and Lithuanian Railways discussed potential remedies, but failed to reach an agreement. The Commission therefore imposed a fine of €28 million. The General Court partially upheld the Commission decision, reducing the fine from €28 million to €20 million due to the limited territorial scope of the infringement.[2]

On 1 September 2020, JD Sports Fashion and Pentland Group Limited filed an appeal against a CMA decision of 29 July 2020 to impose a penalty of £300,000 on the parties for failing to comply with the requirements of the CMA’s initial enforcement order issued in the context of the completed acquisition by JD Sports of Footasylum plc.

On 11 November 2020, the Court of Appeal handed down its judgment clarifying the ability of parties that settle European Commission (Commission) antitrust investigations to challenge the Commission’s findings in follow-on-damage actions. The judgment concerns an appeal relating to a preliminary issue arising in seven claims for damages following on from the 2016 Commission Trucks settlement decision (the Settlement Decision). The Court of Appeal held that the five truck manufacturers could not deny facts they had admitted in settling with the Commission – facts that were subsequently recorded in the Settlement Decision.

On November 10, 2020, the Commission sent a Statement of Objections (“SO”) to Amazon, alleging that Amazon abused its dominance on the market for provision of marketplace services in France and Germany, by accumulating and using sensitive data of independent retailers to benefit Amazon’s own retail business.[1] On the same day, the Commission announced that the investigation into Amazon’s e-commerce business practices was spun-off into a standalone probe.

On 6 November, the CMA published new draft guidance on jurisdiction and procedure in UK merger cases (Draft J&P Guidance) and on the CMA’s mergers intelligence function. On 17 November, it published new draft guidance on the substantive assessment of mergers in the UK (Draft Substantive Guidance). The draft sets of Guidance incorporate developments in the case law, reflect the evolution of the CMA’s policies and procedures, and take account of changes in the legal framework concerning public interest mergers. Together, they confirm the CMA’s expansive approach to asserting jurisdiction and reinforce a more interventionist and less formalistic approach to assessing mergers, especially in digital markets, that has been evident in the run-up to Brexit.