The English High Court (“High Court”) has issued an important judgment in the claim that Gemalto group companies (“Gemalto”) brought against Infineon (“Infineon”) and Renesas Electronics (“Renesas”) companies, for damages arising from the smart card chips cartel (Gemalto NV and others v Infineon Technologies AG [2022] EWHC 156 (Ch), the “Judgment”).  The claim arises from a European Commission decision in 2014.  The High Court has found that Gemalto brought its claim out of time because the limitation period started to run not when the Commission adopted that decision, but about one and a half years before that, when the Commission adopted preliminary charges in the form of a Statement of Objections.  The Judgment gives a clear signal that prospective claimants can no longer assume that the limitation period starts running from the date of a regulatory decision and gives some reassurance that potential defendants should not be on the receiving end of claims that could have been brought earlier.

Starting the clock – Statement of Objection vs Regulatory Decision

Relevant to the matters before the High Court, the smart card chips cartel took place between September 2003 and September 2005.  The Commission conducted dawn raids at a number of suspected participants in January 2009.  Also relevantly, it sent two requests for information (“RFIs”) to Gemalto in the course of 2012, as a “customer on the relevant market, which may have knowledge of facts thought to be useful for the investigation”.  The second RFI specifically mentioned the period of the conduct under investigation and the companies potentially involved.  Subsequently, on 22 April 2013, the Commission announced that it had issued a Statement of Objections in connection with the investigation.  The international press reported on that, including that Infineon, Renesas and others had received the Statement of Objections.  Some one and a half years later, on 3 September 2014, the Commission announced that it had adopted a decision in which it found that Infineon, Renesas and others had taken part in a cartel,  issuing a press release alongside a summary of its decision.  The Commission published a non-confidential version of its decision on 16 December 2016.  Gemalto issued its follow-on damage claim at the High Court on 19 July 2019.

The High Court had to determine at what point the six-year limitation period started to run, which turned on determining at what point Gemalto had, or could have had, sufficient information to form a reasonable belief as to the essential facts of its cause of action.  Mrs Justice Bacon had to decide whether this was (i) by the time the Commission announced it had issued its Statement of Objections (in April 2013), or (ii) when the Commission adopted its Decision (in September 2014).

Verdict – The clock can start ticking before the Regulatory Decision

In finding that Gemalto had acquired sufficient information to bring a claim by the time of the former — the Statement of Objections — Mrs Justice Bacon considered that the Statement of Objections sets out the Commission’s preliminary position that there was a cartel infringement, and thus could be relied on as a basis for a claim.  Mrs Justice Bacon seemingly attached importance to the consideration that a Statement of Objection is not a preparatory step.  Rather, in her view, it reflects the Commission’s belief that it has evidence that the addressees engaged in anti-competitive conduct following a full investigation (including dawn raids, information from the parties, and, potentially responses from third parties).

In addition, Mrs Justice Bacon considered that Gemalto had acquired relevant knowledge of the anti-competitive conduct even prior to the Statement of Objections being announced since it had received two RFIs in 2012 identifying the potential cartel period and suspected participants.

Rejecting one of Gemalto’s arguments, Mrs Justice Bacon also made it clear that having sufficient knowledge to bring a claim does not equate being able to plead all minute details of such claim, which aligns with existing precedents about the applicable pleading standards.

As a result, Gemalto was found to have brought its claim out of time.

Implications

Whilst an appeal seems highly likely, the Judgment is significant, as it conveys a strong position from the bench that prospective claimants can no longer assume that the limitation period starts running from the date of a regulatory decision, especially if they have received RFIs in the course of the regulatory investigation, or there has been a fair amount of information about it in the public domain prior to the Statement of Objections.  Accordingly, the Judgment provides some reassurance that potential defendants should not be on the receiving end of claims that could have been brought earlier.  It remains to be seen whether this decision will act as an incentive for would-be claimants to consider bringing claims generally at the Statement of Objections stage, even though that would mean bringing their claim as a standalone claim initially.  In any event, beyond the confines of the particular facts of this case, the Judgment will act as a cogent reminder to would-be claimants that pushing deadlines carries an inherent risk.

Tags: CartelsPrivate DamagesUnited Kingdom

Print:
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn
Photo of Peter Camesasca Peter Camesasca

Peter D. Camesasca is a partner in Covington’s Brussels and London offices, with 25 years of experience in all major aspects of EU competition law. Peter also co-chairs the firm’s Foreign Direct Investment Regulation initiative, and, has a particular focus on in-…

Peter D. Camesasca is a partner in Covington’s Brussels and London offices, with 25 years of experience in all major aspects of EU competition law. Peter also co-chairs the firm’s Foreign Direct Investment Regulation initiative, and, has a particular focus on in- and outbound aspects of the Asia/Europe interface.

Peter’s experience includes cases under Articles 101, 102 and 106 TFEU, national and multijurisdictional merger and joint venture notifications (including FDI assessments), investigations by multiple enforcement authorities and global antitrust litigation and monopolization issues (including IP cross-over issues). In addition, he advises and litigates on horizontal and vertical cooperation issues, prepares and executes various compliance and dawn raid programs and participates in the installation of in-house training programs, and heads a vibrant private enforcement practice.

Peter has acted before the European Commission, the European courts, the German Bundeskartellamt, the UK Office of Fair Trading and the Competition and Markets Authority, the Belgian Competition Council, and various national courts.

Photo of Louise Freeman Louise Freeman

Louise Freeman represents parties in complex commercial disputes, and co-chairs the firm’s Commercial Litigation and European Dispute Resolution Practice Groups.

Described by Legal 500 as “one of London’s most effective partners” and by Chambers as “a class act,” Louise helps clients to navigate…

Louise Freeman represents parties in complex commercial disputes, and co-chairs the firm’s Commercial Litigation and European Dispute Resolution Practice Groups.

Described by Legal 500 as “one of London’s most effective partners” and by Chambers as “a class act,” Louise helps clients to navigate challenging situations in a range of industries, including life sciences, technology and financial markets. Most of her cases involve multiple parties and jurisdictions, where her strategic, dynamic advice is invaluable.

Louise also represents parties in significant competition litigation proceedings, including a number of the leading cases in England.

Louise is a key member of our market-leading Privacy and Data Security Litigation team, which advises a broad range of international clients on data privacy-related litigation. She has recently represented a client in an intervention in an appeal in the leading UK case making new law in relation to both data privacy claims and class actions.

Photo of Laurie-Anne Grelier Laurie-Anne Grelier

Laurie-Anne Grelier Laurie-Anne Grelier assists global companies, especially Asian multinationals, with navigating complex areas of European competition law, including antitrust and cartel investigations, the clearance of mergers, the structuring of distribution, collaborative and other commercial arrangements, and issues related to abuse of dominant…

Laurie-Anne Grelier Laurie-Anne Grelier assists global companies, especially Asian multinationals, with navigating complex areas of European competition law, including antitrust and cartel investigations, the clearance of mergers, the structuring of distribution, collaborative and other commercial arrangements, and issues related to abuse of dominant position. Ms. Grelier also assists these companies in litigation before the European Courts, as well as with state aid and trade matters.