Alignment of Pharmaceutical Strategy for Europe with the Action Plan on IP
Managing IP is part of the Delinian Group, Delinian Limited, 4 Bouverie Street, London, EC4Y 8AX, Registered in England & Wales, Company number 00954730
Copyright © Delinian Limited and its affiliated companies 2024

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

Alignment of Pharmaceutical Strategy for Europe with the Action Plan on IP

Sponsored by

maiwald-logo-cropped.PNG
guillaume-perigois-0nrkvdda2fw-unsplash-1.jpg

Dr Gisela Grabow of Maiwald explains the importance of a comprehensive approach to the revision of pharmaceutical legislation that considers the relationship with IP rights and the Action Plan on IP

On September 28 2021, the EU Commission published a report on the public consultation on the revision of the EU's pharmaceutical legislation, as part of the Pharmaceutical Strategy for Europe (Pharmaceutical Strategy), adopted in November 2020.

Such Pharmaceutical Strategy inter alia focuses on supporting a competitive and innovative European pharmaceutical industry, which should ideally go hand in hand with the strategy for innovation in life sciences and pharmaceuticals in the Commission’s Action Plan on Intellectual Property (Action Plan on IP).

In the context of the Action Plan on IP, the EU Commission underlines that is actively involved in strengthening the protection and enforcement IP rights, and recognises efficient Intellectual Property (IP) systems as being important in promoting investments, innovation, growth and business activities of EU companies. Further, the Commissioner for Trade Phil Hogan emphasised: “As much as 82% of all EU exports is generated by sectors which depend on intellectual property.”

According to the report published on the consultation, the pharmaceutical industry supports the improvement of the regulatory system and promotion of innovative manufacturing; addressing the causes for supply shortages and supply chain risk, whilst the generics industry requests increased competition, revision of procurement criteria and

IP rights.

For the pharmaceutical industry and the foodstuff industry (concerned by Regulation (EU) No. 2019/1381) the partial parallelism of the incentives put forward in the Action Plan on IP and of the planned measures set forth in the Pharmaceutical Strategy as well as partial deviations make it difficult to assess the legislative framework.

It is therefore of utmost significance to align the legislative measures on ‘supporting competitiveness, innovation and sustainability of the EU's pharmaceutical industry and the development of high quality, safe, effective and greener medicines’ with envisaged legislation to incentivise the use and deployment by small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) and facilitate access to and sharing of intangible assets.

There are a number of issues which have to be carefully assessed in terms of addressing pitfalls in existing legislation, for instance with respect to a unified supplementary protection certificate (SPC) grant mechanism and/or a unitary SPC title.

In the context of this example, the Commission is currently preparing an impact assessment for supplementary protection certificates for pharmaceutical and plant protection products, in the context of the Action Plan on IP, and the importance of SPCs is also mentioned in the Pharmaceutical Strategy, but only with a short reference to the Action Plan on IP.

Hence, in the revision of the pharmaceutical legislation envisaged by the Commission for Q1 2022, an alignment with amendments to IP-related legislation is of vital importance.

This assessment should have respect to concerns as to whether the increase in transparency and access is more important than keeping research confidential and IP sufficiently protected, a clear pitfall in the Transparency Regulation (Regulation (EU) No. 2019/1381). For IP related to plant varieties, which is recognised in the Action Plan on IP, such a pitfall should be avoided.

Another example of deviating interests is the proposal to impose greater ‘conditionality’ on companies to market a medicine in all EU countries.

The few examples mentioned here make evident how important it is that a comprehensive approach in the revision of pharmaceutical legislation takes into account the relationship with IP rights. And in terms of IP rights legislation, access, transparency and affordability of medicines should be aligned with improved protection mechanisms.

 

Dr Gisela Grabow

Principal, Maiwald

E: grabow@maiwald.eu

 

 

more from across site and ros bottom lb

More from across our site

With a team of more than 80 patent lawyers and attorneys across 21 European offices, the firm is acting in some of the most high-profile UPC cases
Lippes Mathias has hired three partners and a counsel from Offit Kurman
External counsel for automotive companies explain how trends such as AI and vehicle connectivity are affecting their practices and reveal what their clients are prioritising
We provide a rundown of Managing IP’s news and analysis coverage from the week, and review what’s been happening elsewhere in IP
The winners of the awards will be revealed at a gala dinner in New York City on April 25
Counsel debate the potential outcome of SCOTUS’s latest copyright case after justices questioned whether they should dismiss it
Each week Managing IP speaks to a different IP lawyer about their life and career
The small Düsseldorf firm is making a big impact in the UPC. Founding partner Christof Augenstein explains why
The court criticised Oppo’s attempts to delay proceedings and imposed a penalty, adding that the Chinese company may need to pay more if the trial isn’t concluded this year
Miguel Hernandez explains how he secured victory for baby care company Naterra in his first oral argument before the Federal Circuit
Gift this article