CASE HUB ARCHIVED–this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the decision to accept commitments on 10 February 2021; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline and commentary. Case facts Outline European Commission Article 102 TFEU investigation into Aspen concerning whether it has been abusing its dominant position in numerous national markets by charging excessive prices in relation to the supply of off-patient cancer medicines (AT.40394). Latest development On 10 February 2021, the Commission accepted commitments from Aspen, and therefore closed its investigation. Under the commitments accepted: • Aspen will reduce its prices across Europe for the six cancer medicines by, on average, approximately 73% (which is, on average, below the prices charged in 2012, ie before Aspen started increasing its prices) • these prices will be the maximum that Aspen can charge for the coming ten years and will have started taking effect already as of October 2019, and• Aspen guarantees the supply of the medicines for the next five years, and, for an additional five-year period will either continue to supply or make

Law360: Julian Assange's plea deal with US authorities has vindicated his legal team's decision to throw the kitchen sink at opposing extradition, a strategy that may have cooled the appetite of prosecutors for seeing the WikiLeaks founder spend more time behind bars, lawyers say.

Corporate Crime analysis: Nick Vamos, Partner, and Adam Wawrzynski, paralegal, consider the extradition case of Julian Assange, its background, the current stage of the appeal and next steps, the main ground of appeal, and what, if any, impact a successful appeal would have.

These are separate offences; an assault is intentionally or recklessly causing another to apprehend immediate and unlawful violence, whereas battery is the intentional or reckless infliction of unlawful force.

The offence of actual bodily harm The offence of assault occasioning actual bodily harm (ABH) can be tried in either the magistrates' court or the Crown Court. Most offences of ABH are tried in the magistrates' court unless the court considers its powers of sentencing are insufficient (see: Sentencing for ABH below). Elements of the offence Under section 47 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 (OATPA 1861), the prosecution must prove: • an assault or battery, and • the assault or battery caused the victim actual bodily harm Assault The prosecution must prove: • conduct • that intentionally or recklessly • causes the victim to apprehend immediate unlawful violence It is not necessary that any violence is actually used. It is the fear or apprehension of violence which is required. Battery The prosecution must prove: • an infliction of unlawful force on another person, and • that the force applied was intentional or reckless The courts have held that it is not necessary that the force be applied

This Practice Note covers the offence of common assault or battery committed against emergency workers. It deals with the elements of the offence, who constitutes an emergency worker, the meaning of acting in the exercise of functions as an emergency worker, the statutory aggravating factors, alternative charges, the racially or religiously aggravated form of the offence and information about sentencing. The offence of assault on an emergency worker Section 1 of the Assaults on Emergency Workers (Offences) Act 2018 (AEW(O)A 2018) makes it an offence to commit a common assault or battery against an emergency worker acting in the exercise of functions as such a worker. The offence is triable either way. Prior to this offence coming into force on 13 November 2018, such offences were charged under existing summary only offences: • section 89 of the Police Act 1996 (PA 1996) for assaults against a police officer or a prison officer • section 90 of the Criminal Justice Act 1991 (CJA 1991) for assaults against a private sector prison officer • section 13 of the Criminal

The offence of assault with intent to resist or prevent arrest Assault with intent to resist or prevent arrest contrary to section 38 of the Offences Against The Person Act 1861 (OATPA 1861) is an offence which can be tried in the magistrates' court or the Crown Court. The magistrates' court will decline jurisdiction if the sentencing powers of the court are considered to be insufficient. Guidance on the magistrates' court sentencing powers is provided by the Sentencing Council's Magistrates’ Court overarching guideline—allocation. Elements of the offence of assault with intent to resist or prevent arrest The elements of the offence are set out in OATPA 1861, s 38. The prosecution must prove that the accused committed: • an assault on any person • with the intention to resist or prevent • the lawful apprehension or detention of themselves or another for any offence Meaning of assault Offences under OATPA 1861, s 38 require a common assault to have been committed. Common assault requires conduct which causes the victim

A method of transfer of estate property only available to personal representatives (PRs). An assent activates the gift of estate property to the beneficiary and, after assent, the PRs hold the asset on trust for the beneficiary until any further formalities to transfer the legal title have been complied with.

Personal representatives (PRs) can transfer assets to beneficiaries in any way that would also be available for the lifetime transfer of such property. In addition, there is a further method of transfer that is only available to PRs: the assent. Assent of pure personalty An assent is an indication by the PRs that they do not require an asset for estate administration purposes and that the property may pass to the beneficiary entitled under the testator’s Will. No formality is required for an assent of pure personalty. It may be: • in writing • made orally, or • implied from conduct The effect of an assent is to activate the gift of the property to the beneficiary. Further formalities to transfer the legal title in the property to the beneficiary must also be complied with where necessary. Once the PRs have assented an asset effectively, they hold the property concerned on trust to carry out these further requirements. In the case of some assets, verbal assent or even the fact of

Intellectual property (IP) agreements, such as those relating to the licensing of technology or the joint development of new technology, may contain provisions that are restrictive of competition. At the same time, however, such agreements may have (significant) pro-competitive benefits. These benefits are recognised in block exemption regulations that provide a ‘safe harbour’ from the application of the prohibition on anti-competitive agreements in Article 101(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), provided certain conditions are met. The Technology Transfer Block Exemption (TTBER) provides a safe harbour for certain intellectual property rights (IPRs) licences—technology transfer agreements—which are potentially restrictive of competition (see further Practice Note: The technology transfer block exemption). Where IP-related agreements do not fall under TTBER, this does not mean that those agreements necessarily infringe Article 101 TFEU. Firstly, other block exemption regulations may very well apply. As such, it is worth considering the application of the following block exemptions regulations, namely:

Intellectual property (IP) laws confer exclusive rights on holders of patents, copyright, design rights, trademarks and other legally protected rights. The owner of intellectual property rights (IPRs) is entitled to prevent unauthorised use of its intellectual property and to exploit it, for example, by licensing it to third parties. At the same time, this right of exploitation does not mean that IPRs are immune from competition law intervention. As any other agreement, agreements concerning IPRs (eg licenses allowing the licensee to exploit the licensor’s IPRs) have to be compatible with Article 101(1), TFEU. For most potential licensees and licensors, a first step in determining the compatibility of their arrangements with EU competition law will be to assess whether they may benefit from a block exemption regulation. The block exemption regulation that is most likely to apply to an IP licence is the Technology Transfer Block Exemption Regulation (TTBER, Regulation 2026/877), the latest version of which came into force on 1 May 2026

NOTE—This Checklist assumes the starting point is unilateral conduct by a single undertaking. It is aimed at guiding an assessment of whether that conduct may amount to an abuse of dominance under Article 102 TFEU. It does not address situations involving collective dominance or coordinated conduct between multiple undertakings. Is the entity an ‘undertaking’ engaged in ‘economic activity’? The first question to consider is whether the entity concerned is an ‘undertaking’ and whether the conduct is carried out by that undertaking. EU competition law only applies to ‘undertakings’—ie entities engaged in offering goods or services on a market. For further information on the concept of an ‘undertaking’ and the meaning of an ‘economic activity’, see further: What is an undertaking? It is therefore necessary to identify the undertaking carrying on the activity in question. Separate legal entities may constitute a single undertaking for competition law purposes where they do not act independently on the market but form part of a single economic unit (for example, where a parent exercises decisive influence over a subsidiary).