regulation Archives - European Industrial Pharmacists Group (EIPG)

A new member within EIPG


The European Industrial Pharmacists Group (EIPG) is pleased to announce the Romanian Association (AFFI) as its newest member following the annual General Assembly of EIPG in Rome (20th-21st April 2024). Commenting on the continued growth of EIPG’s membership, EIPG President Read more

The EU Parliament voted its position on the Unitary SPC


by Giuliana Miglierini The intersecting pathways of revision of the pharmaceutical and intellectual property legislations recently marked the adoption of the EU Parliament’s position on the new unitary Supplementary Protection Certificate (SPC) system, parallel to the recast of the current Read more

Reform of pharma legislation: the debate on regulatory data protection


by Giuliana Miglierini As the definition of the final contents of many new pieces of the overall revision of the pharmaceutical legislation is approaching, many voices commented the possible impact the new scheme for regulatory data protection (RDP) may have Read more

Reform of pharma legislation: the debate on regulatory data protection

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

by Giuliana Miglierini

As the definition of the final contents of many new pieces of the overall revision of the pharmaceutical legislation is approaching, many voices commented the possible impact the new scheme for regulatory data protection (RDP) may have on the entire European pharmaceutical and healthcare sectors. In the meantime, the Committee for Legal Affairs of the European Parliament approved the amendment to the Regulation proposed by the Commission to govern the issuing of Union compulsory licences for the manufacturing of medicinal products during crisis.

The initial proposal on regulatory data protection

To resume the main features of the EU Commission proposal on incentives referred to regulatory data protection (RDP), the current 8+2(+1) scheme would be remodulated to grant a standard 6-year period of regulatory data protection, valid for all newly approved medicines. This might be followed by extension periods of different length, depending on specific conditions (see here the impact report, Chap. VII).

The proposed additional criteria may support an RDP duration up to 12 years, as for example in the case of medicines for orphan diseases or unmet medical needs. But the more debated criteria proposed by the Commission is perhaps the request to the holders of marketing authorisations (MAH) to market newly approved medicinal products in all EU members states at the same time, within 2 years from the date of the MA. Should this occur, the MAH may benefit from a 2-year extension of the RDP.

New chemical substances undergoing clinical testing against a relevant and evidence-based comparator may also benefit of a 6-month extension of the RDP. Should the product be already in the market, the approval of a new indication coupled to the provision of a significant clinical benefit may extend regulatory data protection for 1 year. The same extension applies to products that changed their prescription status on the basis of significant non-clinical tests or clinical studies. Repurposed medicinal products may benefit from a 4-year extension of regulatory data protection in case of a new therapeutic indication not previously authorised in the EU.

The RDP is critical for the EU’s competitiveness

According to the Director General of EFPIA, Nathalie Moll, there are three key areas to be kept in mind while reaching the final decision: the positive net financial impact of regulatory data protection for both patients, the EU and member states, the R&D attractiveness at the EU and national level, and the fact the US has currently a more attractive RDP than the EU (see here more).

The regulatory data protection scheme proposed by the Commission might greatly reduce the number of new medicines available in Europe in the next 15 years, says EFPIA. The Commission’s estimate of €1.2 billion/year of additional costs for members states for every additional year of regulatory data protection would be wrong, it adds, as it is based on the List Prices of medicines. But many EU countries have clawback-type mechanisms to reduce this type of impact, which should be added to the indirect impact innovative medicines may exert in reducing other costs supported by healthcare systems. Thus, the final economic impact calculated by EFPIA would be €2 billion/year.

The attractiveness for R&D investments of a certain geographical area may prove also important, especially in the case of advanced therapies and complex types of therapeutics or to support research targeted to unmet medical needs.

As for the duration of regulatory data protection in the US, according to EFPIA this reaches 12 years (including market protection) for biologics and around 6-7 years of market protection for small molecules. ”RDP for non-biologics is the only element of IP where Europe leads on the US and is in the control of EU policy makers”, wrote Nathalie Moll.

On the other side of the game, Medicines for Europe on behalf of the generic and biosimilar industry also addressed a note to the rapporteur and shadow-rapporteur of the EU pharmaceutical legislation.

The key message is that there might have been a misunderstanding about the concrete impact of the extensions of regulatory data protection proposed by the EU Parliament, which received a strong political support, due to the complex interactions between the pharma legislation and the IP and SPC legislations.

The correct understanding of the dual track of pharmaceutical incentives (regulatory and patent/ SPCs) should be thus the key area of attention during the final set up of the new provisions. According to Medicines for Europe, some parliamentary amendment would extend the duration of regulatory data protection well beyond the duration of SPC, thus further extending the global protection (up to 13.5 or 18 years, depending on the specific proposal) and preventing the entry of generics and biosimilars in the European market.

The analysis run by the industrial association also calculated the potential impact on pharmaceutical budgets corresponding to the possible different lengths of regulatory data protection, and how the same budget might be used to potentiate the resources of healthcare system in terms of available nurses and doctors. The calculated range spans from €2.5-5.35 bln for the three countries considered (France, Germany, Spain) up to €19.5 bln to the entire EU in the case of 13.5 year extension, and it reaches, respectively, €13.2-24 bln and €99.5 bln in the case of the 18 years extension.

A strong critical voice in support of a true competition

The European Social Insurance Platform (ESIP) published a note at the end of February signed by its Director, Yannis Natsis. “Let us be clear that these protection periods are not companies’ rights, but privileges granted to the manufacturers by the European legislators, and they come at a significant cost for public budgets”, wrote Mr. Natsis.

The extension of regulatory data protection would thus result in a possible distortion of competition, and in a delay of patients’ access to treatments. Mr. Natsis also identified the “elephant in the room” of the European healthcare system, i.e. the extremely high prices of medicines in many therapeutic areas. An issue that ESIP’s Director considers a systemic problem.

The note supports the proposed 6-year standard regulatory data protection, with extensions that should not exceed the current situation. Incentives for orphan medicines should go in favour of truly rare diseases and unmet medical needs. ESIP also supports the availability of alternative incentive mechanisms to reward development of new antibiotics, instead of the Transferable exclusivity vouchers (TEVs) that should be replaced.

ESIP’s Director also wrote that “Put simply, we need to take these industry threats with a pinch of salt”, with reference to the pharmaceutical industry having repeatedly threatened to leave Europe since the beginning of the revision of the pharma legislation. “In any case, we cannot afford to end up with a reform which hands a free-for-all incentives “menu” to the companies. These are very expensive “carrots”. Such an outcome will be counter-productive for patients and self-defeating for healthcare systems across Europe”, commented Yannis Natsis.

From the perspective of statutory payers, a well-functioning generic competition allows to treat larger groups of patients at lower prices, while the pricing and business strategies of pharma companies often would limit the possibility to treat patients with most severe conditions. The request for the Parliament is thus to reach a well-balanced text. “There needs to be a renewed social contract between the pharmaceutical industries and the society at large”, wrote Yannis Natsis.

The JURI Committee amendments to the proposed Regulation on the Union compulsory licensing

In the meantime, the Committee for Legal Affairs (JURI) of the EU Parliament approved on 13 February 2024 (17 votes in favour, 6 against) the report detailing the amendments to the proposed Regulation on the Union compulsory licensing during crisis and emergencies for the public health.

The Report also include the opinion given by the Committee on International Trade, and the list of entities or persons that provided input to the rapporteur (Adrián Vázquez Lázara) in the preparation of the report, among which are many industrial associations.

The Explanatory Note by the rapporteur highlights the need to maintain the equilibrium between innovation and rapid access to essential products. The JURI Committee has identified several aspects of the proposed Regulation that should be better clarified to ensure legal certainty, and which were addressed within the approved amendments.

The definition of “crisis” raised many concerns; the proposed amendments refer to a cross-border effect in the UE with involvement of two or more member states. Measures put in place should be proportionate, and not unnecessarily and disproportionally affecting the rights of citizens or the protection of intellectual property rights of businesses.

Union compulsory licenses might be issued only after the rights-holder has the time to negotiate a voluntary license with a potential licensee. To this instance, the Parliament has indicated 4 weeks as a suitable period for the Commission to wait for the results of ongoing negotiations. Furthermore, the Union compulsory licensing should remain a last resort instance and should have a duration strictly in line with that of the crisis, with a maximum of 12 months unless otherwise needed.

According to the JURI Committee, the definition of the know-how necessary for the manufacturing of certain products should be also clarified, as it is key to activate an expanded production capacity during crises. A new proposed recital indicates the Commission should have the authority to oblige rights-holders to provide all needed information, including know-how, especially for highly complex pharmaceuticals such as vaccines.

The Committee also highlighted the need for a better definition of the role of the advisory board. The proposed amendment indicates the inclusion as observers of other crisis relevant bodies at the UE level to ensure consistency with the measure, and of representatives of national authorities responsible for issuing compulsory licenses under the national patent laws.

Rights-holders should be able to provide their comments and other pertinent information to the advisory board prior to the final issuing of the Union compulsory licence. The procedure should start with the identification of the intellectual property rights concerned, and of potential licensees. The Commission should not grant any compulsory licences should the rights-holders not have been completely identified.

The JURI Committee also amended the text of the proposal to indicate the remuneration for the rights-holders should be determined, among others, considering the total gross revenue gene-rated by the licensee from the pertinent activities governed by the Union compulsory licence.

Remuneration should be also provided in cases where the rights-holder should disclose the trade secrets strictly necessary to achieve the purpose of the licence. A new amendment asks the Commission to assess the list of crisis modes or emergency modes reported in the Annex to the Regulation every two years from its entry into force, or without undue delay in case of exceptional threats to public safety or national security.


The proposals of the EU Commission for the revision of the IP legislation

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

By Giuliana Miglierini

In parallel to the new pharmaceutical legislation, on 27 April 2023 the EU Commission issued the proposal for the new framework protecting intellectual property (IP). The reform package impacts on the pharmaceutical industry, as it contains proposals on Supplementary Protection Certificates(SPCs) and compulsory licensing (CL) in crisis situations. It also includes a new Regulation on Standard Essential Patents(SEPs).

The proposed reform, which is part of the EU Industrial Strategy, will now undergo the scrutiny of the European Parliament and Council. It aims to improve European competitiveness, innovation and technological sovereignity, with a special attention to the role played by SMEs. The proposal is based on comments received during the consultation on the Action Plan on Intellectual Property issued in November 2020. The IP legislative framework will complement the Unitary Patent system, that will fully entry into force on 1 June 2023.

Supplementary Protection Certificates

Central to the reform of the SPC system is the creation of a unitary SPC to complement the Unitary Patent. The aim is to reduce the current fragmentation in the issuing of SPCs at the national level, which often leads to complex interpretation of patents’ expiry dates, and consequent legal uncertainty. The new system would not replace the existing national SPC schemes.

Procedures should be simplified, with a single application to be submitted to the EU Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), which would be responsible for its central examination in close cooperation with EU national IP offices. The process would lead to national SPCs granted for each of the designated member states (MS), plus a unitary SPC if required by the applicant (here the Q&As).

According to the Commission, approx. 25% of current SPC procedures have contradictory outcomes. The mean number of annual SPC applications is 81 per MS, with a total cost of €192,000 over the 5 years of duration (compared to roughly €3,000 in the US and €4,200 in Japan). Savings from the new procedures may amount to up €137,000 for the EU27 wide, five years long SPC protection. A central SPC database is also planned in order to increase transparency.

The proposed reform is comprehensive of a Regulation specific to medicinal products and a second one focusing on plant protection products, plus parallel recasting regulations to review the current legislative provisions (i.e. Regulation (EC) No 469/2009). Innovators would be incentivised to use unitary SPCs, since otherwise a unitary patent could be extended at higher costs only by means of national SPCs. Infringements of unitary SPCs would fall under the judgement of the UPC Court.

The Commission expects the development and access to generic medicines will be facilitated. In particular, SMEs will be able to submit observations during the examination of a centralised SPC application, and to file an opposition in order to centrally challenge the validity of the SPC protection, if justified. The new framework complements the proposed pharmaceutical legislation, for example on the Bolar exception. This should allow the generic industry to perform research and testing for preparing regulatory approval also while a patent/SPC is still in force.

Compulsory licensing

Compulsory licensing may be used during crisis in order to provide access to relevant products and technologies, should result in impossible (or not adequate) to close voluntary licensing agreements with owners of IP rights. The current fragmentation of procedures at the national level results in a wide legal uncertainty (see also the published Q&As). The new framework would complement other EU crisis tools, such as the Single Market Emergency Instrument, HERA regulations and the Chips Act.

According to the proposal, a Union compulsory licence can only be granted after activation of an emergency or crisis mode at EU level. Instruments to trigger this fundamental passage are listed in an Annex, so to improve legal certainty. A remuneration scheme for IPR holders is also included, on the basis of successive steps in the activation and termination of compulsory licensing.

The existing national frameworks on compulsory licensing will continue to operate, and they may be used to manage local crisis. Compulsory licensing of exported products would not be allowed.

Standard Essential Patents

SEPs refer to technologies essential for the implementation of a technical standard adopted by a standard developing organisation. They are typical of the ITC industrial sector, and central to building the Internet of Things.

To improve the transparency and legal certainty of SEPs, the proposal aims to ensure innovation would be run in the EU by both EU SEP owners and implementers. End users would benefit from products based on the latest standardised technologies at fair and reasonable prices. SEPs licensing is based on the FRAND scheme (fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory) for the remuneration of patent holders.

Comments from the stakeholders

EFPIA granted positive feedback on the simplification and harmonisation of the SPC system and to the opportunities offered by the unitary SPC. On the other hand, the proposals on compulsory licensing didn’t find the agreement of the research-based pharmaceutical industry.

According to a note, voluntary licensing would be the preferred instrument for innovators, as it allows for the choice of the best-positioned and trusted partners to speed up production and distribution of medicinal products during health crisis. On the contrary, compulsory licensing is seen as a threat to investment stability of the EU’s IP system and to the overall innovation pipeline.

Protecting the EU’s intellectual property framework could not be more important if we are to close the investment gap between Europe, the US and increasingly China and continue to offer patients the best possible treatments. Yet we are seeing multiple proposals emerging from the European Commission in the pharmaceutical legislation and patent package which tend towards the opposite”, said EFPIA Director General Nathalie Moll.

Medicines for Europe (MfE), on behalf of the generic and biosimilar industry, said that while “voluntary licensing agreements are relevant for health crises, we will contribute constructively to the EU-wide compulsory licensing system”. The request to the Commission is to make it a remedy also for anti-competitive abuses of the patent system, according to art. 31(k) of the TRIPS Agreement.

As for new SPCs, MfE highlights the new regime would extend their geographical scope from the current 20 out of 27 MS covered on average. “The proposal for a reform in the SPC system has the potential to reduce fragmentation in Europe but the legislation must ensure improved quality and transparency of granting procedures to prevent misuse by right holders to delay competition”, said MfE Director General Adrian van den Hoven.

Critics of the proposed scheme for compulsory licensing also came from EUCOPE, representing pharmaceutical entrepreneurs. According to the Confederation, the Commission’s proposal would further weakening the value of intellectual property rights within the EU. “Together with the proposal on the revision of the general pharmaceutical legislation, it is another indicator that the development of an innovation-friendly environment is not a priority, contrary to statements in the Intellectual Property Action Plan”, it states in a note.

For EUCOPE, the proposed SPC regime would not amend the substantive elements of the current system. Furthermore, a centralised SPC application would only be possible on the basis of a European patent, including a unitary patent, and for products with a centralised marketing authorisation. EUCOPE position goes for an optional EU-wide SPC, so to allow flexibility for IP owners in deciding their strategy for the protection of IP rights.


The EU Commission proposal of the new pharmaceutical legislation

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

By Giuliana Miglierini

After a five-months delay, the European Commission has announced on 26 April 2023 its proposal for the revision of the European pharmaceutical legislation. The package is comprehensive of a Directive governing authorisations and other regulatory procedures, and a Regulation focused on central authorisation procedures. A Council Recommendation on antimicrobial resistance is also included. The entire reform package shall now undergo the scrutiny of both the European Parliament and Council in order to gain final approval and adoption.

In this first article, we will resume the main features of this highly complex reform, leaving to following posts a more detailed discussion of the single lines of intervention.

The experienced delays acknowledge of the many difficulties encountered by the Commission in reaching a balance between forces representing different perspectives within the pharmaceutical sector. Among the main areas of debate was the exclusivity protection: an issue not yet re-solved, judging from the first reactions from industrial associations, and that should be addressed during the incoming negotiations at the EU Parliament and Council.

A single market for medicines

Central to the entire reform package is the creation of a single European market for medicines, aimed to facilitate the fair and rapid access to patients of all member states. Regulatory procedures for approval of generic and biosimilar medicines should be simplified. Patients are also expected to benefit from more innovative medicines, thanks to a wide array of incentives, and from the repurposing of products already on the market.

Patient centricity should also address rare diseases and new therapeutic options for paediatric patients, including the creation of a EU network of representatives of patients associations, academics, developers and investigators. Patient representatives should be appointed to the EMA Committees, and thus involved in the approval of new medicines. A more extensive use of electronic Product Information is expected to facilitate access to updated information, while reducing costs for manufacturers.

A greater transparency on public funding for R&D should better support price negotiations with national authorities, so to make medicines more affordable to patients.

The long lasting issue of medicines shortages should be tackled from different perspectives. Pharmaceutical companies should be responsible for the emission of earlier warnings on shortages and withdrawals, and for the establishment of prevention plans. European authorities should create a list of critical medicines, to be used to identify supply chain vulnerabilities and improve security of supply. National and central competent authorities are called to a better monitoring of shortages, while EMA should play a stronger guiding role on security of supply.

The One Health approach should inspire actions to improve the environmental sustainability of medicines. From this perspective, the proposed reform includes a strengthened environmental risk assessment for all medicines, including those already on the market. Actions to improve environmentally friendly production technologies and to reduce the release of drugs into the environment are also considered.

Actions supporting innovation

The reform package completely redesigns the duration of regulatory protection, reducing the standard length to 8 years (6 years of data protection + 2 years of market protection), but offering a wide range of incentives to reach a cumulative maximum of up to 12 years of protection. The true novelty is the 2-year incentive for companies launching a new product in all EU markets at the same time. Other incentives are targeted to unmet medical needs (6 months), comparative clinical trials (6 months), and for a new indication to treat another disease (1 year).

The standard market exclusivity should reach 9 years for medicines for rare diseases. In this case too, a wide range of incentives may extend protection to up to 13 years.

The Transferable data exclusivity voucher is the tool identified to support the development of new antimicrobial medicines: the voucher would be transferred to another of the company’s products, extending its protection by 1 year. The Commission plans to issue no more than 10 vouchers over a 15 year period, under strict conditions, so to limit the impact of the measure on healthcare systems. Reshoring of pharmaceutical productions and EU’s strategic autonomy are not included in the reform. A number of other actions are ongoing to support specific lines of intervention, i.e. the EU FAB flexible manufacturing network of vaccines producers, HERA’s Joint Industrial Cooperation Forum on vulnerabilities along the supply chain, and the Important Project of Common European Interest on Health to allocate state aid to support for innovative EU projects.

A more flexible regulatory framework

A higher regulatory flexibility should support fast approval of medicines. Regulatory assessment for centralised procedures should shorten to 180 days (from the current 210); the time should be reduced further to 150 days for products needed for health emergencies.

Simplification of procedures will include full electronic submission of applications. Rolling re-views and temporary emergency marketing authorisations at the EU level for public health emergencies will fully enter the set of available procedures. Simplification should also include the abolishing of the marketing authorisation renewal in most cases.

A reform of EMA’s Committees is also envisaged: only the Committee for Human medicinal pro-ducts (CHMP) and the Safety Committee (PRAC) should continue to exist, while the orphan, paediatric and ATMP committees would be abolished.

Generic and biosimilar medicines shall also benefit from simpler rules for approval, while regulatory sandboxes are the tool to support testing of particularly new and innovative therapies. These may also benefit of additional early scientific advice and regulatory support by EMA, particularly for unmet needs. Dedicated pathways are also planned to support repurposing, especially for SMEs and not-for-profit organisations.

Clinical development may be improved thanks to a wider use of adaptive clinical trials, real world evidence and health data. The reform is also expected to make easier the interaction with other relevant healthcare frameworks, e.g. for medical devices and health technology assessment.

The first comments from interested parties

A very negative opinion on the proposed reform has been issued by the European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industrial Associations (EFPIA), representing the innovator industry.

Unfortunately, today’s proposal manages to undermine research and development in Europe while failing to address access to medicines for patients”, said EFPIA’s Director General Nathalie Moll. The main point of criticism is the 2-year incentive for the contemporary launch of a new medicine in all 27 member states, that for EFPIA would represent an impossible target for companies. According to President Hubertus von Baumbach, “the ‘net’ impact of policies set out across these proposals, in their current form, puts European competitiveness at risk: overall, it weakens the attractiveness for investment in innovation and hampers European science, research and development”. A comprehensive competitiveness checks on the impact of the revised pharmaceutical legislation is EFPIA’s request.

The Association also published a series of reports supporting its vision on the availability of new medicines throughout Europe, as its first action to stimulate the debate in view of the assessment of the proposal by the EU Council and Parliament.

We strongly support the proposal’s intention to stop the well documented patent games manship and evergreening and the adaptation of incentives to necessary equity of access across the EU. Moreover, there should not be an accumulation of regulatory incentives that would extend the regulatory data protection period beyond the existing system (8 years) which is already the longest in the world. Regarding AMR, the Commission proposal for a reserve fund is the correct alternative to transferable vouchers and most efficient policy to protect against future risks”, wrote in a note Medicines for Europe, representing the generic, biosimilar and value added medicines industry. “The central role of the off-patent medicines industry for the patient is clearly reflected in the intentions of the draft legislation. We are still lacking an industrial strategy to strengthen the European off- patent sector and improve open strategic autonomy in health”, said Medicines for Europe President Elisabeth Stampa.

EuropaBio, on behalf of the biotech sector, welcomed the provisions improving the EU’s regulatory framework and promoting novel technologies. In this case too, the main concern is the proposed new set of incentives, that according to EuropaBio may undermine the predictability and stability of the European landscape for innovation. “It is essential that EU policies meaningfully improve patient access to medicines across the EU without undermining the EU’s attractiveness for life science investments”, said EuropaBio Healthcare Public Affairs Director Vlad Olteanu.

AESGP supports the revision of the EU pharmaceutical legislation in principle. While we welcome the regulatory simplifications introduced by the revision, we are voicing some concerns on behalf of non-prescription medicines manufacturers that may have unintended negative consequences”, said Jurate Svarcaite, AESGP Director General. The Association resumed its worries in a statement published in its site.

These include the proposed two new prescription criteria for antimicrobial products and medicines containing an active substance which may have an environmental impact. As for incentives, according to AESGP a longer data exclusivity period (3 years instead of 1) should be considered in cases where new, pivotal evidence is generated, for switching from prescription to non-prescription status. Other points of concern refer to how environmental risks for medicines are to be assessed. “Decisions to minimise the environmental impact should always lead to proportional risk mitigation measures and never interfere with clinical priorities and benefit/ risk assessments that ensure EU citizens get access to the healthcare products they need”, wrote AESGP.

Improvement to the Commission’s proposal would also be needed with regard to the adoption of electronic Product Information, where a phased and harmonised approach to digitalisation is suggested. A better definition of real-world evidence/data would also be needed. As for shortages, mitigation measures should be proportionate and aimed at the critical medicines that do not have alternatives and have concentrated supply chains. AESGP supports the extension of the proposed approach to Risk Management Plans exemption also to medicinal products of well-established use, as for generics and biosimilars.

We appreciate the proposals aimed at streamlining and digitalising regulatory procedures, yet we are concerned that other provisions will undermine R&D, innovation, and EU competitiveness. These will be especially detrimental to the small and mid-sized innovative companies that Eucope represents. The proposal introduces more risk and unpredictability into the system while reducing incentives for innovation and investment, which will negatively impact patient access”, wrote the association in its comments to the proposal of reform.

The Commission’s revision includes troubling proposals, such as the introduction of (High) Unmet Medical Need, which risk reducing the EU’s global competitiveness in life sciences, thereby limiting the development and availability of innovative therapies”, said Eucope Secretary General Alexander Natz.