Medicinal products

Subscribe to Medicinal products

On 27 February 2023, an agreement in principle was reached by the UK and EU, known as the Windsor Agreement, relating to post-Brexit trade issues in Northern Ireland (NI). The principles are expected to be approved shortly by the EU-UK Joint Committee. The UK Government and the EU institutions will then enact legislative measures to make the necessary amendments to their laws. 

Following Brexit, from 31 January 2020, the UK is no longer subject to EU single-market rules or the EU legislative framework. However, under the EU-UK Withdrawal Agreement’s Protocol on Ireland and Northern Ireland, NI continues to follow EU rules. This is to avoid customs checks between NI and the Republic of Ireland. In practice, this means that medicinal products on the market in NI must be authorised in line with the EU regime, which no longer applies in Great Britain. This causes difficulties for companies marketing their products in the UK, as different authorisations, following different rules, apply in different parts of the UK. It also means that patients have access to different products in GB or NI.

The current agreement covers a number of sectors, and in relation to medicines, the aim is to simplify supply between GB and NI, and ensure that only one authorisation is needed and one set of rules needs to be followed within the UK. However, much detail still needs to be published so that companies can fully understand the impact of the changes on their medicines supply chains.…

Continue Reading The Windsor Agreement and supply of medicinal products in Northern Ireland

On 17 November 2022, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) delivered its preliminary ruling in joined cases C-253/20 Impexeco NV v Novartis (Impexeco), and C-254/20 PI Pharma v Novartis (PI Pharma), finding that where a parallel importer affixes the trade mark of a branded reference medicinal product onto the packaging of a generic product, the brand owner may oppose the placing of that generic product by the parallel importer on the market of a Member State. Though the CJEU provides an exception to this general rule, the authors query whether the exception will ever apply.

Importantly, this case compares: (i) the rules on when a parallel import licence can be obtained (which is a regulatory question), and (ii) when rebranding can legitimately take place for such products (which is an IP question). As set out below, the need for “identicality” is not the same for these two considerations.…

Continue Reading Parallel imports: identicality of products when repackaging

On 18 November 2022, the European Medicines Agency (EMA) published a draft reflection paper (Paper) for public consultation on the criteria for the evaluation of new active substance (NAS) status for biological substances. The Paper provides guidance for applicants on the elements required for a successful NAS claim, including practical examples and a Q&A. This is an area of significant practical importance for pharmaceutical companies and the Paper is a key element to consider during the development of regulatory strategies for biological, biotechnology-derived and advanced therapy medicinal products (ATMPs).

Chemical active substances are excluded from the scope of the Paper, given they are already addressed in two previous reflection papers. The Paper builds on these reflection papers and provides guidance to applicants based on the EMA’s experience with biological products to date, and the current scientific thinking.

The public consultation on the Paper is open until 31 May 2023.…

Continue Reading Evaluation of New Active Substance Status for Biological Products in the EU

On 31 January 2022, Regulation (EU) 2022/123 on a reinforced role for the European Medicines Agency (“EMA”) in crisis preparedness and management for medicinal products and medical devices was published in the Official Journal of the EU. This Regulation sets out a stronger role for the EMA in managing public health crises, and aims to formalise the ad-hoc structures and processes that have been used by the EMA during the COVID-19 pandemic. The intention is that these ad hoc process can now serve as a blueprint for a more harmonised EU response to future public health emergencies.

The reinforced role of the EMA is seen as an important development for the European Health Union. It aims to ensure that the EU is better prepared to manage future health crises by tackling shortages of medicines and medical devices more effectively and to develop medical countermeasures to address the threats posed to public health at an early stage and in a harmonised way. As part of this, the Regulation sets out important provisions on monitoring shortages of medicines and devices, and a greater role of the EMA in overseeing medical devices.…

Continue Reading New EU Regulation Reinforcing the Role of the EMA

In May 2021, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) published a draft guidance (Draft Guidance) addressing the requirement for all investigators involved in clinical trials conducted under a U.S. Investigational New Drug (IND) application to sign Form FDA 1572. This includes investigators in clinical trial sites outside the U.S.

By signing Form FDA 1572 (Form 1572), the investigator of a drug or biologic trial warrants that they and any listed staff have the experience and background needed to conduct the trial and agrees to comply with the protocol and all applicable U.S. regulatory provisions governing the conduct of clinical trials.  From an FDA standpoint, it provides a clear basis of responsibility (and potential liability) under the applicable clinical trial regulations (21 CFR 312) for those who sign the form.  It also raises questions about the extent of FDA’s extraterritorial reach over non-U.S. investigators who conduct IND studies outside of the United States.…

Continue Reading FDA Guidance on Clinical Investigators Signing Form FDA 1572 and Practical Challenges Outside the US

Earlier this month, the European Commission published an updated version of the 2011 Note on the handling of duplicate marketing authorisation applications for medicinal products (the 2011 Note). Following a long period of consultation and exchange with stakeholders and representatives from the EU Member States, the European Commission has sought to clarify the conditions under which applications for duplicate marketing authorisations will be assessed. In this blog post, we discuss the relevant changes, as well as the implications for the industry.
Continue Reading European Commission publishes updated guidance for duplicate marketing authorisations

On 24 December 2020, the European Union and the United Kingdom reached an agreement in principle on the EU-UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement (the Agreement). This was the result of many months of detailed negotiation within an increasingly difficult political environment. The final Agreement does not cover all of the aspects about which life sciences companies have been concerned, and there are areas that will likely be the subject of further discussion during the implementation of the Agreement. However, many view the Agreement as being an important first step in the UK’s continuing relationship with the EU. We set out below a summary of the key aspects of the Agreement relevant to life sciences companies.
…
Continue Reading The EU-UK Agreement and the implications for life sciences companies

On 20 October 2020, “The Human Medicines (Amendment etc) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020” Bill was laid before the UK Parliament (the 2020 Bill). The Bill proposes amendments to various Statutory Instruments that were drafted in 2019 (the 2019 SIs) in anticipation of a “no-deal” Brexit. The 2019 SIs sought to enable the pharmaceutical regime in the UK to function independently of the EU, and for the MHRA to act as a stand-alone regulator of medicinal products placed on the UK market. The 2019 SIs have now been revived so that they are effective beyond the end of the transition period, which expires on 31 December 2020, subject to any agreement that may be reached with the EU about the ongoing relationship between the UK and EU.

The 2020 Bill includes a number of changes to the 2019 SIs, which themselves changed the current Human Medicines Regulations of 2012. However, one area that is of particular interest to the industry is the regulatory data protection (RDP), marketing protection and orphan exclusivity periods that apply to medicinal products authorised in the UK after the transition period. The 2020 Bill changes the position that had previously been set out in the 2019 SIs.
Continue Reading RDP periods in the UK after Brexit

The European Commission has published a proposal for a Regulation reinforcing the European Medicines Agency’s (EMA) role in crisis preparedness and management for medicinal products and medical devices. According to the European Commission, the COVID-19 pandemic demonstrated that the EMA has a limited ability to manage availability issues relating to medicinal products and medical devices and lacks a framework for crisis response. The aim of the proposed Regulation is to set up such a framework which will allow the EU to respond effectively to health emergencies through broader engagement with the relevant stakeholders in a coordinated and timely manner to achieve the over-arching objective of public health protection.
Continue Reading Draft EU Framework for Coordinated Approach to Addressing Emergency Public Health Threats

The Neurim CJEU decision of July 2012 has arguably caused an equal amount of excitement and controversy.  On the one hand, it seemed to open the door to supplementary protection certificates (SPCs) for second or further medical uses.  On the other, it seemed to go against a number of previous decisions.  On a strict literal interpretation of Article 3(d)[1] of the SPC Regulation[2], it should not be possible to obtain an SPC for new applications of old active ingredients that had already been the subject of a marketing authorisation.  In Neurim, based on a teleological interpretation to the SPC Regulation, the CJEU held that such an SPC could be validly granted.

A recent Opinion from Advocate General M. Giovanni Pitruzzella in the Santen SPC preliminary reference[3] urges the CJEU to expressly reject the Neurim decision, considering that the mere limitation of its application or marginalisation would not be a satisfactory option.

The facts in Santen

On 3 June 2015, Santen filed an SPC application relying on European Patent No. 057959306 as the basic patent in force (the “basic patent”) and on an EMA marketing authorisation granted on 19 March 2015 for the drug Ikervis (an eye drop emulsion containing the active ingredient ciclosporin used to treat severe keratisis).  The French National Institute of Industrial Property (“INPI”) rejected the application on the ground that a marketing authorisation had been previously issued for the same active ingredient for a medication called Sandimmun (an oral solution with several therapeutic indications including the eye disease uveitis, an inflammation of some or all of the uvea (the middle part of the eye)).

INPI held that the conditions in Neurim had not been satisfied for two reasons:

  • the basic patent was not limited to the severe keratisis indication – the claims included product only claims and claims to numerous other eye diseases; and
  • Santen had not demonstrated that the marketing authorisation constituted a ‘new therapeutic indication’ within the meaning of Neurim (for example, where the mode of action of the active ingredient differs or where the medical field differs).

Santen appealed the decision to the Paris Court of Appeal and it, in turn, decided to stay proceedings referring two preliminary questions to the CJEU.  The first question has asked the CJEU to consider how the concept of “different application” of an old active substance as understood in Neurim should be interpreted and the question provides a range of possible options from strict to broad interpretations.  The second question asks whether, in the context of determining whether the “[SPC application is] within the limits of the protection conferred by the basic patent” as understood in Neurim, the scope of the basic patent should be the same as the marking authorisation relied upon (i.e. it should be limited to the new medical use corresponding to the therapeutic indication of that marketing authorisation).

Less than six months after the preliminary reference was made by the Paris Court of Appeal, the CJEU had the opportunity to consider the scope and relevance of the Neurim decision in the Abraxis SPC case[4].  In that case the CJEU did not openly criticise the Neurim decision and, instead, limited its ramifications by referring to it as an “exception to the narrow interpretation of Article 3(d)” which “does not, in any event, refer to cases of new formulations of the product at issue”.…

Continue Reading Santen SPC case: Advocate General Pitruzzella urges CJEU to reject Neurim