Pharmaceutical companies

French “anti-gift” rules strictly regulate the relationship between the life sciences industry and healthcare professionals (“HCP”) and the possibility for companies active in the health sector to offer benefits, in cash or in kind to healthcare professionals, medical students or associations representing them.  This includes a general prohibition against offering such benefits.

To strengthen the

On 21 February 2019, the European Commission wrote to the European Medicines Agency (“EMA”) and the Heads of Medicines Agencies of the EU-27 Member States concerning the acceptability of UK batch testing after Brexit (see the letter here).  The letter seeks to address concerns that a number of pharmaceutical companies will not have been

The European Data Protection Board (“Board”) released an opinion on January 23, 2019, on the intersection between the EU General Data Protection Regulation (“GDPR”) and the Clinical Trials Regulation (“CTR”).  The opinion considers a Q&A on this topic prepared by the European Commission’s Directorate General for Health.  The Directorate General decided to create this Q&A because of perceived contradictions between the GDPR and the CTR, in particular in relation to the legal basis (e.g., the use of consent) and the further use of clinical trial data. (See also here).
Continue Reading European Data Protection Board releases Guidance on Intersection of the GDPR and the Clinical Trials Regulation

On October 22, 2018, the European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries in cooperation with the Future of Privacy Forum and the Center for Information Policy Leadership organized a workshop entitled “Can GDPR Work for Health Research.”  In the first session, the workshop discussed the implications of the General Data Protection Regulation (“GDPR”) on clinical trials in

The “Nagoya Protocol on Access to Genetic Resources and the Fair and Equitable Sharing of Benefits Arising from their Utilization to the Convention on Biological Diversity” is an international agreement which aims at sharing the benefits arising from the utilization of genetic resources in a fair and equitable way. It entered into force on 12 October 2014.

The Nagoya Protocol imposes a complex set of multi-jurisdictional compliance obligations on businesses active in the pharmaceutical, food, cosmetics and other life science sectors. It now has more than 100 contracting parties, including the EU. The key legal source in the EU is Regulation (EU) No. 511/2014 on compliance measures for users from the Nagoya Protocol on Access to Genetic Resources and the Fair and Equitable Sharing of Benefits Arising from their Utilization in the Union.
Continue Reading German government has started enforcement of the Nagoya Protocol and reviews compliance of pharmaceutical companies

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.

Continue Reading AG’s Opinion – Licensed and Unlicensed Medicines May Fall Within the Same Relevant Product Market

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