fees Archives - European Industrial Pharmacists Group (EIPG)

EMA’s pilot scheme for academic and non-profit development of ATMPs


by Giuliana Miglierini Advanced therapy medicinal products (ATMPs) are often developed by academic and non-profit organisations, because of their high level expertise in the biotechnological techniques that underpin many new therapeutic approaches. On the other hand, these organisations often lack Read more

Lessons learnt to transition from Horizon 2020 to the new FP10


by Giuliana Miglierini The European Commission published the ex post evaluation of Horizon 2020 (H2020), the FP8 framework programme for research and innovation (R&I) run in years 2014-2020. The report identifies several areas of possible improvement, which may be taken into Read more

Approvals and flops in drug development in 2023


by Giuliana Miglierini Approvals and flops in drug development in 2023 The European Medicines Agency published its annual highlights, showing 77 medicines were recommended for marketing authorisation, and just 3 received a negative opinion (withdrawals were 19). In 2023 some highly expected Read more

EP’s draft position on Unitary SPC and SPC Regulation revision

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

by Giuliana Miglierini

The Committee for Legal Affairs (JURI) of the European Parliament released the draft amendments to the Commission’s proposals aimed to establish a Unitary Supplementary Protection Certificate (SPC) (links to the document and to the procedure) and to revise the current SPC Regulation (links to the document and the procedure).

On the dedicated pages of EP’s website, you can also find the opinion issued by the Consultative Working Party, according to the Inter-institutional agreement of 28 November 2001 on a more structured use of the recasting technique for legal acts.

A document analysing the potential impact of the Unitary SPC on access to health technologies was also prepared by the Policy Department for Citizens’ Rights and Constitutional Affairs Directorate-General for Internal Policies in September 2023.

We summarise the main features of the EP’s draft positions, which were discussed in the 7 November meeting of the JURI Committee.

The revision of the current SPC Regulation

The JURI Committee (Rapporteur Tiemo Wölken) moved to Recital 2 the statement that “medicinal products, in particular those that are the result of long, costly research will not continue to be developed in the Union unless they are covered by favourable rules that provide for sufficient protection to encourage such research”. Recitals 3 and 5 of the original proposal have been deleted, the last one referring to the risk research centres located within the EU might move to countries offering greater protection. The new Recital 2 makes now reference to the difficulty of establishing a direct link between favourable protection rules and EU competitiveness. If, on the one hand, it would be true that the attractiveness of EU markets might benefit from favourable protection, on the other it should be taken into account that European incentives can be granted also to authorised medicines from third countries. Furthermore, UE-based innovative companies can equally benefit from incentives in third countries.

Recital 13, referring to the request of a marketing authorisation for a biological medicinal pro-duct identified by its International Nonproprietary Name (INN), has been amended to indicate that the protection conferred by the SPC should extend to all biosimilars (and not to therapeutically equivalent products, as previously indicated).

A reference to Article [86] of the new Directive (EU) …/… [2023/0132(COD)] to be approved has been introduced in Recital 24, concerning fees that can be charged by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) with reference to centralised application for SPCs for paediatric medicinal products.

The newly inserted Recital 41 a highlights the importance of the timely entry of generics and biosimilars in the EU market, as it may support competition, reduction of prices, sustainability of national healthcare systems and access to affordable medicines.

Several amendments have been proposed for Recital 45. Among the main ones is the reference to the opportunity “to restrict the protection conferred by a supplementary protection certificate in accordance with Regulation (EU) 2019/933 so as to allow making for the exclusive purpose of export to third countries and any related acts in the Union strictly necessary for making or for the actual export itself […]”. The JURI Committee referred to “related acts” as those that “could include the possession, supply, offering to supply, import, using or synthesis of an active ingredient for the purpose of making a medicinal product containing that product, or temporary storage of the product or advertising for the exclusive purpose of export to third-country destinations”.

A phrase was added to Recital 60 on the centralised SPC register to deny the possibility to use the hereby contained information to support patent linkage, regulatory or administrative decisions related to generic or biosimilars, pricing and reimbursement decisions or tender bids. Article 35 – paragraph 11 a further emphasises this concept with reference to public authorities, that should not use such information for refusal, suspension, delay, withdrawal or revocation of marketing authorisations.

The JURI Committee also modified the definition of medicinal product contained in Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 1 of the proposed Regulation, making reference to “‘any substance or com-bination of substances that fulfils at least one of the following conditions”. These include properties for treating or preventing disease in humans, the possibility to restore, correct or modify physiological functions by exerting a pharmacological, immunological or metabolic action, or to making a medical diagnosis.

The new Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 12 a defines the meaning of the wording ‘economically linked’ with reference to “different holders of two or more basic patents protecting the same product, that one holder, directly or indirectly through one or more intermediaries, controls, is controlled by or is under common control with another holder”.

The JURI Committee also introduced the new Article 8 – paragraph 1 – point d b, stating the need to provide information on any direct public financial support received for research related to the development of the product.

The new Article 26 – paragraph 4 – point c a mentions the inclusion of any evidence in the notice of opposition in support of the opposition itself. According to the amended Article 26 – paragraph 6, the opposition panel should communicate its decision together with the reasoning for it. The same applies to the EUIPO (Article 26 – paragraph 9). The Office should also issue a single decision with reference to several oppositions filed against an examination opinion (Article 26 – paragraph 9 a). Undue delays are repeatedly discouraged.

Article 28 – paragraph 3 – point a was amended to indicate that examiners of patents and SPCs should possess relevant expertise and sufficient experience in the assigned tasks. Article 45 – paragraph 3 adds experts shall be verified for the absence of any conflict of interest.

Amendments of the Unitary SPC proposal

Many of the amendments made by the JURI Committee to the Unitary SPC proposal correspond to the ones seen above for the SPC recast. Among the distinctive ones is the new Recital 14 a, focusing on the “digital by default” principle and consequent electronic applications for unitary and combined applications for supplementary protection certificates. Article 8 – paragraph 4 a adds that the electronic application for a unitary SPC should use the formats made available by EUIPO. Other articles regulate the entire procedure to occur by exchange of electronic documentation.

Amended Recital 22 now makes explicit reference to the possibility to produce and store in the EU “in view of entering the market of any Member State upon expiry of the corresponding certificate (‘EU Day-one entry’) and any acts related thereto”.

The new Article 22 – paragraph 1 – point c b defines cases where the applicant shall waive the SPC rights for markets where the medicinal product has not been launched, i.e., the medicinal product is not placed on all Member States or a Member State market covered by the unitary certificate or combined centralised SPCs.

Comments from Medicines for Europe

The first drafts of the EP position on the SPC and SPC Regulation recast are a step in the right direction for access to medicines across Europe, according to Medicines for Europe. The association particularly appreciated the identification of the necessary safeguards for scrutiny of the SPC application before granting, to prevent invalid (non-innovative) SPCs from delaying access to generic and biosimilar medicines. The undue use of SPC expiry dates in the register to implement unlawful and anti-competitive patent linkage strategies were also deemed positive.


Joint implementation plan for the IVDR regulation

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

by Giuliana Miglierini

Regulation (EU) 2017/746 (IVDR), establishing the new legislative framework for in vitro diagnostic medical devices (IVDs), will entry into force on 26 May 2022. The Medical Device Coordination Group (MDCG) has published an updated version of the Joint implementation and preparedness plan, discussing the priority actions to be implemented and monitored at the level of member states, Commission and MDCG.

The implementation of the IVDR is highly complex, as it requires a strict coordination between all the different stakeholders, including manufacturers, notified bodies, authorised representatives and laboratories. The IVD regulation has introduced a completely new device classification system for in vitro diagnostics, as well as a greater involvement of notified bodies in conformity assessment and new regulatory structures such as the EU reference laboratories and expert panels.

The Joint implementation plan is aimed to support the harmonised implementation of the new framework, a process led by the Commission and where member states are called to ensure the new provisions are effectively applied and enforced at national level.

Ongoing actions and future goals

As of January 2022, six notified bodies were already designated and the examination of other applications is undergoing. The Unique Device Identifier system that will support the punctual tracing of the devices has also been set up, while the Eudamed database is still under development. From the regulatory perspective, a number of new common specifications are being drafted; some guidance documents are already available while others are under development.

To smooth the impact of the transition and to prevent disruption in the supply of essential IVDs, Regulation (EU) 2022/112 has established the calendar for the transition of different classes of devices, i.e. 26 May 2025 for IVDs that fall in class D under the IVDR, 2026 for class C, 2027 for class B and A sterile.

The Joint implementation plan identifies two sets of priorities to be tackled by the stakeholders, on the basis of public health’s goals, patient safety and transparency. Set A includes essential actions to enable IVDs to maintain access to the market. Set B includes the development of other new pieces of legislation and guidance documents needed to better support the transition and the designation of EU reference laboratories for high-risk IVDs.

Set A, essential actions

Contingency planning and monitoring are the first priority to be met under Set A essential actions, in order to anticipate possible risks of IVDs’ shortages arising from the transition to the new framework. The MDCG will closely follow this process to monitor its progress and identify systemic risks and mitigation actions, with a particular attention to the availability of particularly critical IVDs.

Regular updates are also expected from the industry and notified bodies to inform member states and the Commission about the need of specific actions. This type of activity would also support the identification of barriers that could result in shortages of devices, e.g. with reference to the designation of notified bodies or the certification process. Stakeholders are also requested to be ready to manage some uncertainty in areas where guidance is still not available, thus requiring the provision of sound justifications to maintain critical IVDs on the market.

The second highest priority is the availability of a sufficient number of notified bodies to support the expected very high volume of applications for the certification of medium and high-risk IVDs. The plan indicates the need to make available national experts for the joint assessment of notified bodies. Member states should also address the need to improve the notified body capacity, discussing this issue within the MDCG and its specialised working groups as well as with the Commission. According to the Joint plan, the percentage of IVDs requiring certification under the new IVDR will rise up to 80-90%, from approx. 10% devices requiring involvement of a notified body under Directive 98/79/EC.

To facilitate this part of the transition, Regulation (EU) 2022/112 establishes that certificates issued under the Directive 98/79/EC are valid, under certain conditions, until May 2025. Renewals of existing certificates by a set of nineteen notified bodies designated under the current Directive is possibile, if necessary, up to 26 May 2022.

The plan also takes into consideration the possible occurrence of new Covid-19 restrictions, that may highly impact the work of the notified bodies (for example, due to the need to run first-time audits of many manufacturers). The Commission and the MDCG are thus called to consider how notified bodies can perform conformity assessment activities in such circumstances.

Set B, high priority actions

Actions included in set B are not essential for manufacturers to market their IVDs, but their implementation would support a smoother transition.

The EU reference laboratories are a new type of independent scientific body designated by the Commission to carry out additional tests on the performance and compliance with any common specifications of class D devices, before placing them on the market. If the Commission would not designate a EU reference laboratory for a particular device in class D, those requirements are not applicable. According to the Joint plan, a call for application to member states and the Joint Research Centre shall be issued by the Commission to nominate candidate laboratories. New implanting acts on tasks and criteria and on fees to be levied by the EU reference laboratories are also expected.

According to the IVDR, the adoption of common specifications (CS) is optional; nevertheless, the Joint plan indicates the intention of the Commission to propose some sets of common specifi cations and reach an agreement on the text that should enter the first adoption round. This should also lead to the adoption of the first implementing act containing the common specifications. This round should include common specifications relative to Kidd and Duffy blood grouping, Chagas and syphilis, and cytomegalovirus/Epstein-Barr virus devices, for which the drafting process is at an advanced phase.

New common specifications should be targeted to class D devices and will be developed by the IVD sub-group of the MDCG. Already existing CS under the old Directive should be transposed without major modifications.

A new implementing act on the MDR/IVDR standardisation request should be adopted by the Commission and accepted by relevant bodies (CEN/Cenelec). The Commission should also adopt the implementing acts on the publication in the Official Journal of references of harmonised European standards in support of the IVDR requirements.

Set B of actions include also the drafting and endorsement of a guidance on notified body designation codes, as well as of guidance on batch testing for notified bodies. New guidance may be also developed on significant changes and on appropriate surveillance, as referred to in Article 110(3) of IVDR. The MDCG should also complete the issuing of a new guidance on clinical evidence for IVDs, which is part of the documents needed to support the evaluation of the devices’ performances and the work of expert panels.

To this instance, the plan also indicates the need for a clarification on what constitutes a “type of device” and on the process to be followed by notified bodies in context of views of the expert panel. A template for summary of safety and performance should be also released, together with a template for the application/notification of performance studies. The issuing of an IVDR-specific guidance on harmonised administrative practices and alternative technical solutions until Eudamed is fully functional is also planned.

The joint plan also includes sections on actions required in the field of companion diagnostics, legacy devices and in-house devices.