18 MARKETING AUTHORISATION


However, case T-301/12, Laboratoires CTRS v Commission, did not concern an attempt to undermine data exclusivity and here the commission’s attempt to prevent the use of the article 10a route to secure an MA for an orphan medicinal product that had by its nature received only relatively limited use was successfully challenged.


A new approach A decision of


the CJEU on October 23,


2014—in the case C-104/13, Olainfarm v Latvijas Republikas Veselības Ministrija— has revisited the article 10a route to securing an MA in yet another context, but it is of wider significance than for the article 10a route alone. In this case the CJEU has established that a medicinal product authorised on the basis of well- established medicinal use can itself be used as a reference product for the purposes of applying for a generic MA.


More significantly, however, it has also


confirmed that the holder of an MA for a reference medicinal product has the right to challenge the decision of a competent authority


granting


the basis of product.


a


protected by data exclusivity. Te authority considered, however, that the holder of a MA for a reference medicinal product does not enjoy an individual right to challenge an MA granted for a generic of the reference product.


An initial appeal was unsuccessful, but on the subsequent appeal questions were referred to the CJEU regarding (1) whether the manufacturer of a reference medicinal product has an individual


right to bring


an action challenging the decision of a competent authority to grant an MA for the generic medicinal product; and (2) whether a medicinal product for which an MA had been secured in accordance with article 10a of the directive on the basis of well-established medicinal use could be used as a reference medicinal product for the purpose of an


LSIPR Newsletter 12:14


Te consequence of this is to, in effect, confer data exclusivity on an MA so secured, although the practical effect of this in preventing others from securing an MA during the protected period will be limited as the article 10a route will usually be available also to them.


Te need for the first question arose because under Directive 2001/83/EC the procedure for the granting of an MA is “conceived as a bilateral procedure involving only the applicant and the competent authority”. As the CJEU observed, the directive contains no express provision that a decision of the competent authority granting an MA for a generic product can be challenged by the holder of an MA for the reference product.


generic MA on such a reference medicinal


Te reference to the CJEU giving rise to this decision arose out of an application by Olainfarm to annul an MA that had been granted by the competent authority in Latvia to a competitor, Grindeks. In 2003, before Latvia acceded to the EU, Olainfarm had secured an MA for the medicinal product Neiromidin (ipidacrinum). Its application for the MA had been made under the applicable national legislation at


the time,


which corresponded only in part to EU law governing the authorisation of medicinal products.


Terefore once Latvia had acceded to the EU, Olainfarm had to seek a new MA for Neiromidin under EU law, which it did in 2008, on the basis of well-established medicinal use. Grindeks then secured an MA for the same product, basing its application not on well-established medicinal use (which it would have been open to do) but instead as a generic of Olainfarm’s Neiromidin as a reference product.


Olainfarm challenged the grant of the generic MA to Grindeks before the competent authority in Latvia on the basis that it had been made while the reference product was


“There is nothing to preclude such a medicinal product from being used as a reference product for the purpose of obtaining an MA for a generic product.”


application for a generic MA under article 10.


Te need for the second question arose because article 10(2)(a) defines, for the purposes of article 10, a reference medicinal product as “a medicinal product authorised under article 6, in accordance with the provisions of article 8”. On a literal interpretation, this definition does not cover a medicinal product that has been authorised in accordance with article 10a.


However, the CJEU, observing that the dossier for the MA granted for a medicinal product under article 10a will contain all the information and documents needed to demonstrate the safety and efficacy of the product, held that there is nothing to preclude such a medicinal product from being used as a reference product for the purpose of obtaining a MA for a generic product.


www.lifesciencesipreview.com


However, the CJEU also observed that article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU required that any person whose rights as guaranteed by the laws of the EU have been violated has the right to an effective remedy before a tribunal. Terefore it went on to find that the holder of an MA for a medicinal product used as a reference product by a generic applicant has the right to a judicial remedy to challenge a decision to grant a generic MA provided that such a holder of the reference product MA is seeking judicial protection of a right conferred on it by article 10, namely the right of data exclusivity.


Te significance of the CJEU judgment is much wider than the specific circumstances of this case. It is of relevance to any challenge mounted by the holder of an MA to a reference product in the EU against the grant an MA for a generic version of such reference product.


Although in practice such challenges have never presented a problem of standing in some countries of the EU, such as the UK, national systems of administrative law and the requirements of standing under it are highly variable throughout the EU.


Many countries have in the past shared the approach of the Latvian courts in this case, in considering that the holder of an MA to a reference product does not enjoy an individual right to challenge an MA granted for a generic version of the reference product. Tis decision establishes that this is not the case, and so should make it easier to challenge such MAs in the future. n


Trevor Cook is a partner at Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr. He can be contacted at: trevor.cook@wilmerhale.com


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20