Updates on Legal Developments in the EU Life Sciences Industry
On 8 April 2020, the European Commission published its Communication on the “Temporary Framework for assessing antitrust issues related to business cooperation in response to situations of urgency stemming from the current COVID-19 outbreak” (the “Framework“).
The Commission recognizes that supply chains have been severely disrupted due to COVID-19, combined with…
On 20 March 2020, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (“DEFRA”) has announced a raft of measures relating to food supply and key workers with the easing the impact of COVID-19 for UK retailers and workers.
The Department of Education and Cabinet Office has published guidance on key workers for COVID-19. The guidance…
By Dr. Dr. Adem Koyuncu, Covington & Burling LLP
In the EU, drug companies are not allowed to publicly promote prescription-only medicines. As courts also apply a broad interpretation of the term “promotional”, nearly all public statements that mention a prescription drug are likely to be qualified as illegal advertising. In certain circumstances, this may be the case even if no drug is mentioned.
But what should a drug company do if false statements about its product are distributed? What is allowed in case of a so-called shitstorm? What can the company do to counter negative public statements about its drugs by HTA bodies or other institutions of the healthcare system?
Yesterday’s Opinion from Advocate General Saugmandsgaard Øe (AG) in Hoffmann-La Roche vs Autorità Garante della Concurrenza e del Mercato takes the position that licensed and unlicensed pharmaceutical products used for the same indication may fall within the same relevant product market. The Italian Council of State (ICS) referred a number of questions to the EU Court of Justice (CJEU) in March 2016 in the context of the appeal against the Italian Competition Authority’s (ICA) decision that Roche and Novartis reached an illegal market sharing agreement in the market for ophthalmic drugs for serious vascular eyesight conditions.
Background
Avastin (Genentech’s drug licensed to Roche) was approved for certain oncology indications. However, doctors started prescribing unlicensed Avastin to treat vascular eye conditions. Genentech’s Lucentis (licensed to Novartis), indicated for the treatment of certain vascular eye conditions, used a very similar active ingredient.
The UK’s Competition and Markets Authority (the “CMA”) imposed a £84.2 million (€99.7 million) fine on Pfizer yesterday. In addition, the CMA also fined distributor Flynn Pharma £5.2 million (€6.1 million). The CMA found that Pfizer and Flynn Pharma abused their dominant positions by charging excessive and unfair prices for phenytoin sodium capsules, drugs used to treat epilepsy, in the UK. In addition to the fines, the CMA ordered both entities to reduce their respective prices within timeframes of between 30 working days and 4 months.
In September 2012, Pfizer sold the UK distribution rights for the phenytoin sodium capsules (sold until then under the brand name Epanutin) to Flynn Pharma. Flynn Pharma subsequently de-branded the drug, effectively taking it outside the price regulatory regime. Pfizer continued to manufacture the drugs. The CMA found that, after September 2012, Pfizer supplied the capsules to Flynn Pharma at wholesale prices that were between 780% and 1,600% higher than its previous prices to wholesalers and pharmacies. It also found that Flynn Pharma’s prices to wholesalers and pharmacies were between 2,300% and 2,600% higher than the prices previously paid to Pfizer. Flynn Pharma’s prices also significantly exceeded the prices charged by Pfizer (after September 2012) for the same products in other European countries.…
Continue Reading UK CMA Imposes Record Fine on Pfizer
In its 18 October judgment the French Cour de Cassation upheld the €40.6m fine imposed on Sanofi-Aventis (“Sanofi”) by the French Competition Authority (“FCA”) in May 2013 and affirmed the judgment of the Paris Court of Appeal. The FCA found that Sanofi abused its dominant position in violation of Art. 102 of the Treaty on…
The Italian Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato (“AGCM”) has fined Aspen over €5 million for having abused its dominant position – in violation of Art. 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union – by increasing prices of its anti-cancer drugs Alkeran (melphalan), Leukeran (chlorambucil), Purinethol (mercaptopurine) and Tioguanine (thioguanine)…
In its 7 July 2016 Genentech judgment (Case C-567/14), the European Court of Justice (“ECJ”) ruled that Genentech had to pay royalties to Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland under its licence agreement. The Paris Court of Appeal requested a preliminary ruling on whether the provisions of Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (“TFEU”) preclude the imposition of an obligation to pay a royalty for the use of a patented technology for the entire duration of a licence agreement, in the event that the patents protecting the technology are revoked. The ECJ concluded that Article 101(1) TFEU does not preclude the imposition of a requirement to pay royalties, provided that the licensee is free to terminate the agreement by giving reasonable notice.…
Continue Reading Court of Justice Rules That Genentech Must Pay Royalties to Sanofi
The CMA issued an infringement decision today fining GlaxoSmithKline (“GSK”) and two other pharmaceutical companies a total of £45 million for delaying market entry of generic versions of GSK’s blockbuster anti-depressant Seroxat (paroxetine) in the UK.
…
Continue Reading CMA Fines GlaxoSmithKline and Several Generic Companies £45 million for Delaying Market Entry of Generic Paroxetine in the UK
Since its in-depth inquiry into the pharmaceutical industry in 2008-2009, the European Commission (the “Commission”) has monitored patent settlement agreements. In its 2014 report published on 2 December 2015, the Commission revealed the results of its analysis of 76 patent settlement agreements between originators and generics (a number “far below” the figures of previous years), concluding that “the number of settlements that might attract competition law scrutiny remains at a low level”. In fact, 88% of the settlements analysed fell into categories that the Commission considered prima facie do not require competition law scrutiny (para. 51).…
Continue Reading European Commission Publishes its 6th Report on the Monitoring of Patent Settlements
We and the third parties that provide content, functionality, or business services on our website may use cookies to collect information about your browsing activities in order to provide you with more relevant content and promotional materials, on and off the website, and help us understand your interests and improve the website. Privacy Policy
