The EU Clinical Trials Regulation 536/2014 significantly expanded the transparency requirements for clinical trials in the EU, resulting in the public availability of most documents and information submitted by sponsors to the new EU Clinical Trial Information System. Tune into this episode of Covington’s Life Sciences Audiocast, where Robin Blaney and Roderick Dirkzwager look
Following the federal election in September 2021, Germany will soon be led by a new three-party coalition, the so-called “traffic light coalition”, composed of the Social Democratic Party (SPD), the Liberal Democrats (FDP) and the Green Party (Die Grünen). This new federal government led by the new chancellor Olaf Scholz from the Social Democrats will replace the Merkel administration and will be in office for four years. On November 24, 2021, the new coalition has presented their coalition agreement with their plans for the next 4 years. The agreement needs to be approved by the respective party committees and it is expected that all three parties will approve it.…
On 6 May 2021, the European Commission published its “EU Strategy on COVID-19 Therapeutics” (the “Strategy”). With the vaccination programme now under way, the EU is shifting focus towards the development, approval and procurement of COVID-19 therapeutic products. The Commission intends to build on the experience from the EU vaccines strategy. In particular, the aim is to have three new therapeutics available by October 2021 and possibly two further products by the end of the year.
The Strategy touches on a number of key areas for both biotechnology and pharmaceutical companies operating in the space:…
Continue Reading European Commission outlines Strategy on COVID-19 Therapeutics
On 20 March 2020, the European Medicines Agency (EMA) published Guidance on the Management of Clinical Trials during the COVID-19 (Coronavirus) pandemic (the Guidance). The EMA jointly developed the Guidance with working groups from the European Commission and the national Heads of Medicines Agency (HMA).
The Guidance provides information on changes and protocol deviations that…
This article was originally posted on our sister blog Global Policy Watch
Health technology assessment (“HTA”) is a multidisciplinary assessment process that seeks to evaluate the added therapeutic value of health technologies (i.e., drugs, certain medical devices, medical treatments including surgical procedures, and measures for disease prevention and diagnosis) based on both clinical and non-clinical elements. Until now, HTA has strictly fallen in the purview of EU Member States; they have cooperated among themselves in this field for more than 20 years on a purely voluntary basis. This has led to initiatives such as EUnetHTA, which is a network of national HTA bodies, and its various Joint Actions. Article 15 of the Cross-Border Healthcare Directive (Directive 2011/24) also provides for that national bodies responsible for HTA should cooperate on a voluntary basis. Gradually, these various actions have developed common criteria for the performance of HTA at national level. For example, the last “Joint Action 3” of EUnetHTA seeks to define common assessment methodologies, develop common ICT tools, and conduct and produce joint clinical assessments and HTA reports.
EU Member States have acknowledged the significant role that HTA plays and called on the European Commission to continue to support such initiatives (see, e.g., Council conclusions of December 6, 2014, on innovation for the benefit of patients). However, in a resolution of March 2, 2017, the European Parliament went a step further and called on the Commission to propose legislation on health technology assessment at the EU level to provide transparent and harmonized criteria to evaluate the added therapeutic value of drugs and other health technologies.
Continue Reading The Commission’s Proposal on Health Technology Assessment – Will the EU Member States Accept its Mandatory Provisions?
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
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?…
On 11 November 2016, the German Parliament passed another new law amending different parts of the German Medicines Act (Arzneimittelgesetz) and the Act on Advertising for Healthcare Products (Heilmittelwerbegesetz). The law is titled “Viertes Gesetz zur Änderung arzneimittelrechtlicher und anderer Vorschriften“. The draft was deliberated in the health committee of the Federal Council (Bundesrat) on 30 November 2016 and it has become clear that the Federal Council will not object to it in its final deliberations later this month. Therefore, the new law will likely become effective at the beginning of 2017.
The new law especially amends the existing clinical trial rules so that German law will comply with the new Clinical Trials Regulation (EU) No 536/2014. The amendments particularly affect the approval procedure for new studies and the competencies of the ethics committees and regulatory authorities. While currently, two full stand-alone approvals for a study are required (i.e., from the ethics committee and the competent authority), under the new law, certain parts of the ethics committee’s opinion may be overruled by the authority. In addition, a new federal ethics committee can be established by the regulatory authorities which would additionally lead to significant changes in the procedure.
Continue Reading Another round of upcoming amendments to the medicines laws in Germany – Clinical Trials, Advertising, Biologics and more…
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
Raj Gathani, a Trainee Solicitor in Covington’s London office, contributed to this post.
On 1 September 2015 the General Court issued an interim order in favour of Pari Pharma GmbH (“Pari”) to suspend the European Medicines Agency’s (“EMA”) decision to grant a third-party, Novartis Europharm Ltd (“Novartis”), access to certain documents prepared during the Marketing Authorisation (“MA”) application process (the “MA Documents”). The MA Documents at issue included EMA Assessment Reports on similarity and superiority between Pari’s product (Vantobra) and Novartis’ product (TOBI Podhaler), which has an EU MA as an orphan medicine. Novartis made the request to the EMA for access to the MA Documents under the Transparency Regulation 1049/2001. The main case is currently pending before the General Court (Case T-235/15).
The thrust of Pari’s argument before the General Court was that the MA Documents contain Pari’s regulatory strategy for obtaining MA approval, disclosure of which might cause Pari serious and irreparable financial damage. The President of the General Court acknowledged that the case raised complex issues in the area of confidentiality and stated that the main proceedings (rather than an interim hearing) is the appropriate forum to address such issues.. As such the President considered that the MA Documents fell under a presumption of confidentiality and ordered the EMA not to disclose the MA Documents.
Continue Reading General Court Makes Interim Order to Protect Confidentiality in Pari Pharma Transparency Case