The first vertical monopoly dispute in China: Johnson & Johnson was awarded an indemnity of 530000 yuan

China's first vertical monopoly case involving Johnson & Johnson and its dealers was finally settled after three years of trial by two courts This case has been widely concerned by the academia and industry at home and abroad Shanghai Higher People's Court issued a final judgment on the 1st, revoking the original judgment, and sentenced the appellees, Johnson & Johnson (Shanghai) medical equipment Co., Ltd and Johnson & Johnson (China) medical equipment Co., Ltd (the two companies referred to as "Johnson & Johnson company"), to compensate the appellee, Beijing ruibangyong and science and Trade Co., Ltd (hereinafter referred to as "Ruibang company") for economic losses within 10 days from the effective date of the judgment RMB 530 thousand was lost At the same time, the Shanghai high court rejected the rest of Ruibang's claims As a distributor of medical suture, stapler and other medical equipment products of Johnson & Johnson, Ruibang has a 15-year distribution and cooperation relationship with Johnson & Johnson During the period, the price of medical suture products involved in the case was basically unchanged In January 2008, Johnson & Johnson signed the distribution contract and attachments of that year with Ruibang company, stipulating that Ruibang company shall sell the products of aixikang sewing department in the relevant areas designated by Johnson & Johnson company During this period, Ruibang company shall not sell the products at a price lower than that specified by Johnson & Johnson company In March of that year, Ruibang company won the bid with the lowest price in the sales bidding of Johnson & Johnson Medical suture held by the people's Hospital of Peking University Johnson & Johnson warned Ruibang of its low price bidding, then cancelled its distribution rights in Fuwai Hospital and plastic surgery hospital, and finally completely stopped the supply of suture products and stapler products In 2009, Johnson & Johnson no longer renewed its distribution contract with Ruibang On August 11, 2010, Ruibang company sued to the court and asked Johnson & Johnson to compensate for the economic loss of more than 14 million yuan caused by the execution of the monopoly agreement to punish Ruibang company for its low price bidding On May 18, 2012, the court of first instance ruled that Ruibang company had insufficient evidence and rejected its application Ruibang company filed an appeal on May 28, 2012 Shanghai High Court held three court sessions successively Ruibang company and Johnson & Johnson company launched a verbal attack in the court Both sides entrusted Professor Gong Jiong of University of foreign economic and trade and Professor Tan Guofu of Shanghai University of Finance and economics to provide expert opinions to the court The lawsuit is known by the industry as "China's first vertical monopoly case" In the court, the two sides argued intensively about whether the case is applicable to the anti-monopoly law, whether Ruibang company has the plaintiff's litigation qualification, whether the agreement of limiting the minimum resale price signed by the two sides constitutes a monopoly agreement After hearing the case, Shanghai High Court held that the anti-monopoly law should be applied to the dispute The appellee's punishment for the appellee's violation of the agreement on limiting the minimum resale price and a series of actions to stop the supply of suture products afterwards belong to the monopoly behaviors prohibited by the anti-monopoly law, and shall be liable for the economic losses of the appellee caused by the monopoly behaviors The court then revoked the original judgment, and Johnson & Johnson shall, within 10 days from the effective date of the judgment, compensate Ruibang for the economic loss of 530000 yuan, and reject the rest of Ruibang's claims Gong Jiong, a professor at the University of international business and economics, said in an interview that the price of J & J sewing products in the Chinese market has remained basically unchanged for 15 years, which is the result of the cross period price discrimination strategy adopted by J & J on its sewing products Ding Wenlian, chief judge of the case and vice president of intellectual property division of Shanghai high court, said that there are new brands in the medical suture product market, but Johnson & Johnson can calmly cope with the competition at the same price for 15 years, which fully shows that Johnson & Johnson has strong pricing ability for its suture products, and the lack of demand elasticity of the products involved in the case further strengthens the pricing ability of Johnson & Johnson This is very important for the court to comprehensively consider "whether the relevant market competition is sufficient" and "whether Johnson & Johnson has a strong market position in the relevant market" At the same time, Ding Wenlian pointed out that the judgment of this case, especially in safeguarding the interests of patients as consumers and the public interests of the whole society, fully reflected the legislative purpose of the anti monopoly law Wu Kailin, vice president of Shanghai Higher People's court, said at a press conference after the judgment that in the five years since the implementation of the anti monopoly law, the Shanghai court has accepted four cases of monopoly disputes and concluded all of them It is reported that the other three cases are Beijing scholar Electronic Technology Co., Ltd v Shanghai Sheng Disputes over abuse of dominant market position by big network development Co., Ltd and Shanghai xuanting Entertainment Information Technology Co., Ltd.; disputes over abuse of dominant market position by Jiating hotel of Shanghai Yuankai Investment Management Co., Ltd against defendants: Shanghai Branch of China United Network Communication Co., Ltd and Shanghai ruining Information Technology Co., Ltd.; Ye Jian vs Shenzhen Teng Case of dispute over abuse of dominant market position by information computer system Co., Ltd.