The European
Commission has for some time discussed the Supplementary Protection Certificate
Regulation (SPC), its application and interpretation. Interesting aspects of
how the legal framework on SPCs works in the EU were discussed in the Max
Planck report, released in May 2018, "Study on the legal aspects of
supplementary protection certificates in the EU" (here).
During an
extraordinary meeting of the European Parliament’s Committee on Legal Affairs,
scheduled for today, February 26th, the
Committee will (as it seems) vote on the provisional agreement reached in the
trilogue negotiations (you may watch the announcement of the results of the
trilogue negotiations here). Assuming that the provisional
agreement will be confirmed, this will allow the European Parliament to adopt
the agreement in plenum. With the upcoming EU elections in May 2019, one could
expect that the Proposal will be voted by the Parliament already in April 2019.
The goal of
the Proposal for a new Regulation is to
adapt the SPC Regulation to the modern
needs of the pharmaceutical marketplace (taking into consideration the needs of
generics and the biosimilars industry) while at the same time preserving the rights
of the certificate-holder.
The
proposed new Regulation (read here) has, as its main objective, the
creation of a level playing field between Union-based, and third country makers,
of pharmaceuticals. This would be accomplished
by restricting the protection conferred by an SPC 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. These acts
would of course otherwise require the consent of a certificate holder.
Such acts
could include the possession, supply, offering to supply, import, using or
synthesis of an active ingredient for the purposes 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. The
exception will also apply to related acts performed by third parties who are in
a contractual relationship with the maker.
Stockpilling and Export exception? Sounds attractive.... |
Stockpiling
(the process of manufacturing and storing pharmaceuticals in order to be able
to sell directly after the expiry of a patent or SPC), in contrast to manufacturing for export, will be allowed only
during the final six months of the SPC lifetime.
A limited exception
According
to the proposal, the exception will not cover placing, on the market in the
Member State, in which a certificate is in force, the product, or a medicinal
product containing that product. Nor should the exception cover reimportation
of the product into the market of a Member State in which a certificate is in
force.
Moreover,
it should not cover any act or activity for the purpose of import of products
or medicinal products into the Union merely for the purposes of repackaging and
re-exporting. Further, the exception will
not cover any storage of the product for any purposes other than those set out
in this Regulation. By providing a series of limitations, the exceptions are expected
not to conflict with the normal exploitation of the product in the Member State
where the certificate is in force.
Apart from
the limitations to the exception itself, the Proposal includes an arduous information
obligation for the maker (either the producer of the stockpiled pharmaceuticals
or the producer of the “to be exported” pharmaceuticals). Namely, the maker
should provide certain information to the authority that granted the
certificate in the Member State where the making is to take place. The
information should be provided before the making commences in that Member
State, or before any related act prior to that making, whichever is the
earlier.
Should
making take place in more than one Member State, a notification would be required in each of them In the
interests of transparency, the authority would be required to publish, as soon as
possible, the information it receives, together with the date of notification
of that information. Member States would be allowed to require that
notifications, and updates to notifications, be subject to the payment of a one-off
fee. This fee should be set at a level, which does not exceed the
administrative cost of processing notifications and updates.
The rights of the certificate holder
The maker
should also inform the certificate holder, through appropriate and documented
means, of the intention to make a product or medicinal product under the scope
of the exception. In order to safeguard the rights of the certificate holders,
the exception will apply to certificates that are applied for on or after the
day of the entry into force of the Regulation. In fact, the exception is to
apply from 1 July 2022.
Such
application of the exception should allow the holder of a granted certificate,
which has not yet
taken effect by the date of the entry into force of the
Regulation, a reasonable period of transition to adapt.
Reaction from the industry
As
expected, the generics and biosimilars industry (see, for instance, the lobby
group Medicines for Europe press release here) welcomes the Proposal to the new
SPC Regulation. Nevertheless they have at the same time expressed regret that it includes too many safeguards
for the certificate holders, something that could in fact hinder its implementation.
Radical changes in the SPC system in the EU: SPC export and stockpiling exception soon a reality
Reviewed by Frantzeska Papadopoulou
on
Tuesday, February 26, 2019
Rating:
No comments:
All comments must be moderated by a member of the IPKat team before they appear on the blog. Comments will not be allowed if the contravene the IPKat policy that readers' comments should not be obscene or defamatory; they should not consist of ad hominem attacks on members of the blog team or other comment-posters and they should make a constructive contribution to the discussion of the post on which they purport to comment.
It is also the IPKat policy that comments should not be made completely anonymously, and users should use a consistent name or pseudonym (which should not itself be defamatory or obscene, or that of another real person), either in the "identity" field, or at the beginning of the comment. Current practice is to, however, allow a limited number of comments that contravene this policy, provided that the comment has a high degree of relevance and the comment chain does not become too difficult to follow.
Learn more here: http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/p/want-to-complain.html