Today, the Court of Justice of the European Union delivered a landmark judgement with significant practical impact for companies transferring personal data outside the European Economic Area to the United States. The Court of Justice confirmed the validity of the Standard Contractual Clauses for transfer of personal data between a controller in the EU and a processor in a third country (e.g., the US) adopted by the European Commission in Decision 2010/87/EU. The Court has, however, invalidated European Commission Decision (EU) 2016/1250 on the adequacy of the protection provided by the EU-US Privacy Shield.
Continue Reading The CJEU confirms the validity of the Standard Contractual Clauses but invalidates the EU-US Privacy Shield

Advocate General Kokott issued her opinion last week in the preliminary ruling referral from the UK Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT). The CAT proceeding is itself an appeal against an infringement finding against a number of companies (except one, IVAX, which is now part of TEVA, which received a ‘No Grounds for Action’ letter).

AG Kokott finds that an agreement to settle a patent dispute may constitute a restriction of competition by object or by effect and that entering into such an agreement may be an abuse of a dominant position. This is in line with the General Court’s recent judgments in Perindopril and Lundbeck, but her views diverge on market definition where she seems to side with the CAT on a narrow, molecule-level definition.


Continue Reading Paroxetine: AG Rules on Reverse Payment Settlement Referral

EU law places strict controls on the use of nutrition and health claims on food labelling and in advertising. Under Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 (the Regulation):

  • a nutrition claim is any claim which states, suggests or implies that a food has particular beneficial nutritional properties due to the energy and/or nutrients or other substances it provides or contains (e.g., “low fat” or “source of fibre”); and
  • a health claim is one which states, suggests or implies that a relationship exists between a food category, a food or one of its constituents and health (e.g., “Calcium is needed for the maintenance of normal teeth”).

Under the Regulation, it is only possible to use nutrition claims that are listed in the Annex to the Regulation, and/or health claims that have been authorised by the European Commission following a European Food Safety Authority scientific review. The only exception to these requirements is in relation to claims that are trade marks (or brand or “fancy” names) and general, non-specific health claims (e.g., “Good for you” or “Healthy”). These claims may be used without prior approval, provided they are accompanied by an approved claim (which, in the case of a general health claim, must be an authorised specific health claim, such as the calcium example given above).


Continue Reading Latest View on Health Claims on Foods in the EU

We recently published an Advisory on a decision of the CJEU earlier this month on parallel trade. Ordinarily, medicinal products can only be placed on the EU market if they have a valid marketing authorisation in the relevant Member State. However, within the EEA, the principle of free movement of goods applies, meaning that, subject to certain exceptions, Member States cannot prevent free movement of goods once they are lawfully on the market. Therefore, once a product has lawfully been placed on the market, it is possible for third parties to move that product between Member States, subject to certain requirements. This is known as parallel trade.

There have been many decisions in the CJEU considering when medicinal products can be parallel traded across the EU, and the limits on such trade. This recent decision from Poland (Case C-387/18, Delfarma), is the latest in this line of case law.


Continue Reading Recent Important Decisions on Regulatory Requirements for Parallel Trade in the EU

On 14 February 2019, the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU) delivered its judgment in Case C-423/17 Netherlands v Warner-Lambert Company, finding in line with the opinion of Advocate General Kokott issued on 4 October 2018, that “carving-out” indications or dosage forms covered by the patent right of a third party, leading to a skinny label for the product, is a request to limit the marketing authorisation for the generic medicinal product. In practice, this prevents the competent authorities from publishing a complete SmPC, showing all indications associated with the innovator product, on their website.

Today’s judgment will be welcomed by innovative companies seeking to ensure the effectiveness of their second medical use patents.


Continue Reading CJEU decision on scope of skinny labels

This week, the EU General Court partially overturned the EU Commission’s decisions in Perindopril (Servier v Commission and Krka v Commission).

The judgment was handed down pretty much on the tenth anniversary of the original dawn raids in November 2008. The raids came as a follow-up from the European Commission’s pharma sector enquiry and led to a number of infringement decisions that have also found their way up to the General Court and to the Court of Justice of the EU. The key theory which the EU Commission advanced in the cohort of these so-called ‘pay-for-delay’ cases is, very broadly, that EU competition law can intervene in patent settlement cases in certain circumstances (both under the rules on abuse of dominance and restrictive agreements). These circumstances are (again, very broadly) where (i) the settlement proposal restricts entry by an actual or potential generic competitor—the delay element, and (ii) where the originator company makes a value transfer to the potential generic entrant – the payment element. This could be by way of a lump-sum payment or through some other way (e.g., through a beneficial distribution agreement). On abuse of dominance, the theory is that unilateral conduct aimed at “shutting out a competing technology and buying out a number of competitors” constitutes an abuse. These theories are now being tested in the European Courts.

In parallel, the UK’s Competition and Markets Authority (CMA)—or OFT, as it then was—investigated similar issues in Paroxetine, a case which the European Commission pushed to the CMA because of an EU limitation issue and which the CMA pursued as the UK does not have a limitation period for competition law infringements. That case is currently under appeal before the Competition Appeal Tribunal which in turn has referred a number of questions to the European Court of Justice.


Continue Reading Perindopril: Pay-for-delay but not as you know it

The case arose from the reimbursement by the Italian authorities of medicinal products used for an indication for which they are not authorised, in circumstances where there is an alternative authorised product available. Italian law permits the reimbursement of such products “provided that the [unlicensed] indication is known and is in line with research conducted by the national and international medical-scientific community on the basis of economic and suitability considerations”. In these cases the Italian Medicines Agency (AIFA) puts in place monitoring arrangements intended to protect patient safety.

Avastin® (bevacizumab), which is licensed for administration by intravenous infusion for various oncology indications, was added to the Italian reimbursement list in 2014, for intravitreal injection in the eye for the treatment of ophthalmology conditions, on the following conditions:

  • To ensure sterility, packaging of bevacizumab in single dose syringes must be carried out solely by hospital pharmacies satisfying defined requirements and following rules to ensure the doses are properly prepared.
  • The product can be administered only by highly specialised ophthalmological departments in designated public hospitals.
  • Administration may take place only once the patient has signed an informed consent, including the scientific reasons, accompanied by adequate information about the existence of approved alternative therapies at higher cost to the Italian health service.
  • A monitoring record must be created with an adverse reactions declaration form.

Novartis Farma challenged the inclusion of Avastin® in the reimbursement list on the basis that this was incompatible with EU pharmaceutical law. In particular: (i) the general use of medicinal products “off-label”, for financial reasons, in circumstances where the suitability of the licensed product for such use has not been tested, breaches the mandatory character of a marketing authorisation (MA) under Art 6 of Directive 2001/83/EC and is incompatible with Directive 89/105/EEC (the Transparency Directive); (ii) by allowing AIFA to establish monitoring mechanisms to safeguard patient safety, Italian law permits AIFA to encroach on the role of the EMA as established by Regulation No 726/2004; and, (iii) the repackaging of Avastin® does not comply with the conditions required for the exemption under Art 3.1 of Directive 2001/83/EC to apply.

The Italian Court referred four questions to the CJEU.


Continue Reading Novartis Farma SpA v AIFA

On 25 October 2018, the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU) held in Case C-527/17 Boston Scientific that, where a medical device incorporates an ancillary drug substance, that substance will not be entitled to supplementary protection certificate (SPC) protection. That is the case even if the drug substance has been subjected to an evaluation of its safety, quality and efficacy that is analogous to the authorisation procedure for medicinal products, which are entitled to SPC protection.

Continue Reading European Court ruling on SPCs for medical devices

Last week, the CJEU gave its decision in another procurement case in the healthcare area, Case C‑413/17 Roche Lietuva UAB. The case concerned the scope of technical specifications included as part of a tender by the Polyclinic for the Dainava District of Kaunas in Lithuania. The tender set out details of the medical diagnostic equipment and materials the authority wished to procure. Roche claimed that the specifications unreasonably restricted competition among suppliers due to their high specificity, and that in reality, the specifications corresponded to the products of certain manufacturers and excluded others.

The question referred to the Court concerned the limits to the margin of appreciation of a contracting authority to set out specifications in the tender, based on the quality of testing and the value of healthcare that it needs. The Court set out a useful summary of when technical specifications can be included in a tender and the principles for applying such specifications.


Continue Reading European Court clarifies use of technical specifications in healthcare tenders

Last week, the European Court of Justice gave its judgment on certain procurement questions relating to the supply of a radiopharmaceutical product, referred by the Italian Court in Case C-606/17, IBA Molecular Italy Srl. An Italian regional health authority and a public hospital were seeking to award a substantial contract to a private hospital, without conducting a public tender. They argued that as no direct consideration was provided to the hospital, and as the hospital was “classified” as part of the public healthcare system, any award constituted an agreement between public authorities to which EU law on public procurement does not apply. The European Court disagreed, and concluded that (i) public authorities cannot circumvent the EU procurement rules by awarding “funding” to an organisation in return for the provision of free products, and (ii) it was not possible to treat a “private” hospital as a public hospital in order to award contracts to them outside the EU procurement rules.

From the information available about the case, the answers to the questions referred seem straightforward and may be limited to the Italian system. However, it is nonetheless useful to have confirmation from the Court on the extent to which the provision of healthcare falls within the EU procurement regime.


Continue Reading European Court clarifies the application of procurement rules to healthcare