Managing IP is part of the Delinian Group, Delinian Limited, 8 Bouverie Street, London, EC4Y 8AX, Registered in England & Wales, Company number 00954730
Copyright © Delinian Limited and its affiliated companies 2023

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

German court rules against automated dispensing of medicinal products

Sponsored by


Christian Meyer of Maiwald explores a recent decision which prevents the distribution of medicinal products by means of an automatic dispenser from a foreign mail-order pharmacy

The Federal Court of Justice (FCJ) recently ruled that a Dutch mail-order pharmacy is not allowed to dispense medicines via automatic dispensing machines in Germany because this would not guarantee the safety of medicines (decision of April 30 2020, docket no. I ZR 123/19).

In the opinion of the FCJ, the sale of medicinal products from abroad by means of an automatic dispenser operated in Germany does not constitute "shipment to the end consumer from a pharmacy" within the meaning of Section 73(1) no. 1 lit. a) of the Pharmaceutical Products Act.

The FCJ states that the Court of Appeal was right to hold that the restrictions on the supply of medicinal products which were not observed by the defendant, in particular the national pharmacy obligation (first sentence of Section 43(1) of the Pharmaceutical Products Act) and the modalities of a permissible shipment under Section 73(1) no. 1 lit. a) of the Pharmaceutical Products Act, which require shipment directly from the pharmacy to the customer, serve to ensure the safety of medicinal products and are justified in the interest of a high level of protection for the final consumer pursuant to Article 36 TFEU.

The Court of Appeal did not err in law by finding that the distribution model of the defendant, domiciled in the Netherlands, does not satisfy the requirements of pharmaceutical safety as stipulated in the national provisions directly aimed at protecting public health.

The non-admission complaint against the Court of Appeal’s ruling was rejected by the FCJ owing to a lack of fundamental significance, as was a referral to the Court of Justice of the European Union. In the opinion of the Federal Court of Justice, this is not a case of unlawful interference with the free movement of goods (Article 34 TFEU) and, in any case, such interference would be justified in order to protect the health and life of humans.

Christian Meyer

Principal, Maiwald


more from across site and ros bottom lb

More from across our site

Significant changes to the standard of law are unlikely, say sources, who note that some justices seemed sceptical that the parties disagreed on the legal standard
Sources say the High Court of Australia’s ruling that reputation is immaterial in trademark infringement cases could stop famous brands from muscling out smaller players
Members from both sides of the US House of Representatives wrote to USPTO director Kathi Vidal on Friday, March 24, expressing their concern about “patent thicketing.”
Charles Hoskin of Singaporean e-commerce platform Shopee, who made the jump from a luxury brand, says honest conversations and collaborations are key to combatting counterfeiting
Adam Williams speaks to Managing IP about the legacy of Brexit and why IP has sometimes got ‘lost in the noise’ at Westminster
Lawyers wish the latest manual had more details on Federal Circuit cases and that training materials for design patent examiners were online
Counsel are eying domestic industry, concurrent PTAB proceedings and heightened scrutiny of cases before institution
Jack Daniel’s has a good chance of winning its dispute over dog toys, but SCOTUS will still want to protect free speech, predict sources
AI users and lawyers discuss why the rulebook for registering AI-generated content may create problems and needs further work
We provide a rundown of Managing IP’s news and analysis coverage from the week, and review what’s been happening elsewhere in IP