Legal sources with official primary sources

Printed ·

SMLM Previewerrors, bugs and incomplete coverage may occurThe model is production-ready during Q4-26

Skip to main content
Skip to the answer
NovaCopilotA service from ExploreWorldAI

Source status and reading dates are reported separately. A reading date is not source verification.

PMÖD 2017:18

PMÖD 2017:18, Patent and Market Court of Appeal (2017)

Judgment of Patent and Market Court of Appeal, 2017. Statutes applied: Konkurrenslag. The headnote below is reproduced verbatim in Swedish, as published by the court.

Original headnote (Swedish)

I ett mål om konkurrensklausuler i samband med företagskoncentrationer har Patent- och marknadsöverdomstolen i likhet med tingsrätten lämnat Konkurrensverkets talan om konkurrensskadeavgift utan bifall. De aktuella konkurrensklausulerna, som har bedömts vara s.k. accessoriska begränsningar, har inte haft till syfte att hindra, begränsa eller snedvrida konkurrensen. Konkurrensverket hade inte gjort gällande att klausulerna haft ett konkurrensbegränsande resultat. Utan utredning om den konkurrensbegränsande effekten av klausulerna, har Patent- och marknadsöverdomstolen inte kunnat bedöma frågan om för hur lång tid konkurrensklausulerna skulle ses som accessoriska.

Share this page

The decision in three points

  1. What happened

    De aktuella konkurrensklausulerna, som har bedömts vara s.k. accessoriska begränsningar, har inte haft till syfte att hindra, begränsa eller snedvrida konkurrensen.

  2. What the court said

    I ett mål om konkurrensklausuler i samband med företagskoncentrationer har Patent- och marknadsöverdomstolen i likhet med tingsrätten lämnat Konkurrensverkets talan om konkurrensskadeavgift utan bifall.

  3. Why it matters

    Published as a guiding decision by Patent and Market Court of Appeal, 2017. Applies Konkurrenslagen.

Risk profile of the decision

HighThe decision carries substantial weight when relied upon. The reasons below show what the level rests on.

  • Published as a guiding decision by Patent and Market Court of Appeal
  • Applies one statute
  • 35 other decisions in the register apply the same statute

The decision in context

The decision is used in questions about transactions and competition.

Relations of the decision in the graph

Statutes (1)

Questions (0)

    Decisions (8)

    Agent commands

    • runCaseSummary()

      The core question and the decision in three points, verbatim from the published summary.

    • runLegalImpact()

      Risk profile, statutes and the decisions applying the same statute.

    • runObligationCheck()

      Deterministic test of whether the decision is guiding for your question.

    • runProofVerify()

      Check that the hash you cite belongs to this node.

    https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/node-agents/avgorande/pmod-2017-18/manifest.json

    NovaCopilot reasons out a short answer from statutes and case law, with the source right below. 5 answers a day are free.

    NovaCopilot reasons: a short answer of at most 75 words, built only on our register, with the source right below.

    Common questions

    What compensation do I get for a delayed flight in the EU?How long can I return an online purchase in the EU?Can I ask a company to delete my personal data?What notice period applies under Swedish employment law?

    Source: NovaCopilot

    NovaCopilot, start page with all registers: case law, legislation, compliance and health.

    Court
    Patent and Market Court of Appeal
    Decided
    2017-11-29
    Applies
    1

    Mål nr PMT 7498-16

    Also searched as: PMÖD 2017 18, Patent- och marknadsöverdomstolen 2017:18, Swedish judgment PMÖD 2017:18, Case PMÖD 2017:18, PMÖD 2017:18 2017, PMT 7498-16, Case PMT 7498-16.

    • 2 kap. 1 och 2 § konkurrenslagen (2008:579)
    Hämta hela domen

    Hämtas direkt från Sveriges Domstolar när du klickar. Vi lagrar inte domen.

    Patent- och marknadsöverdomstolen, Sveriges Domstolar

    Official publication. The address points to the authority or court that published the row.

    Re-read scheduled

    Checked against the publisher 2026-09-20 · Next check 2026-10-20

    See the open quality meter

    Statutes

    Case law

    Case law read on 2026-09-05.

    Change monitoring

    The row is re-read against the publisher's own publication on a fixed interval. The dates below can be checked on the spot and travel with the API response.

    Change monitoring
    FieldValue
    RegisterSök rättspraxis, Sveriges Domstolar
    PublisherSveriges Domstolar
    Last read2026-09-05
    IntervalEvery 30 days
    Next re-read2026-10-05
    StatusRe-read scheduled
    Open the register at the publisher

    Row history

    Dated events concerning this exact row, newest first. No event appears here without a date in a primary source.

    Row history
    DateEventSource
    2026-09-05Row read against the courts' own registerSök rättspraxis, Sveriges Domstolar
    2017-11-29Date of decision according to Patent- och marknadsöverdomstolenPatent- och marknadsöverdomstolen
    2008-11-01Applied statute in force: SFS 2008:579Sveriges riksdag

    Monitoring states when the row was checked, not how the legal position should be assessed.

    What changed this week, every Monday

    A short letter with new judgments and rule changes in your areas, each with source and checksum. Free, unsubscribe any time.

    Topics

    Cite this row

    The string below travels with a memo, a case file or an agent chain. The same string sits in the citation field of the API response.

    PMÖD 2017:18, I ett mål om konkurrensklausuler i samband med företagskoncentrationer har Patent- och marknadsöverdomstolen i likhet med tingsrätten lämnat Konkurrensverkets talan om konkurrensskadeavgift utan bifall. De aktuella konkurrensklausulerna, som har bedömts vara s.k. accessoriska begränsningar, har inte haft till syfte att hindra, begränsa eller snedvrida konkurrensen. Konkurrensverket hade inte gjort gällande att klausulerna haft ett konkurrensbegränsande resultat. Utan utredning om den konkurrensbegränsande effekten av klausulerna, har Patent- och marknadsöverdomstolen inte kunnat bedöma frågan om för hur lång tid konkurrensklausulerna skulle ses som accessoriska.. NovaCopilot, https://legal.exploreworldai.com/juridik/praxis/pmod-2017-18 (hämtad 2026-10-25, bevis sha256:f404f767f30f8990, bygge legal-2026-10-25).

    Machine addressHow to cite the platform
    sha256:
    f404f767f30f89905545a1c5bbb494df8ff45363a7153244870dfc078b0aaecf
    hämtad:
    2026-10-25
    source_confidence:
    official
    bygge:
    legal-2026-10-25
    officiell källa:
    https://rattspraxis.etjanst.domstol.se/sok/publicering/d1fc8cbd-2833-4d22-b4b8-d6e5dd39c06b

    Official publication. The address points to the authority or court that published the row. Patent- och marknadsöverdomstolen, Sveriges Domstolar.

    The row is a source reference with an official identifier. No legal advice and no compliance decision.