作者
Paul England

Paul England, DPhil

高级专业支持律师

Read More
Matthew Royle

Matthew Royle, Ph.D.

合伙人

Read More
作者
Paul England

Paul England, DPhil

高级专业支持律师

Read More
Matthew Royle

Matthew Royle, Ph.D.

合伙人

Read More

2016年4月1日

Biosimilars and the issue of duplicates

  • Briefing

‘Biosimilars’ refer to products which are similar to a biological product that has already been authorised for use. As the name suggests, the complexities of manufacturing these products means that whilst they may be closely similar to the original “innovator” product, they are not identical.

The European Medicines Agency has only authorised a few biosimilars since the first such authorisation in 2006, and has been at the forefront of developing a specific procedure for the authorisation of such products through the centralised procedure. Despite this innovation, the use of the centralised procedure has posed challenges, especially where the patent for the original biosimilar compound has expired, but there is patent protection for a second medical use of that compound. Under the centralised procedure there is no mechanism to remove the patented indication from the Summary of Product Characteristics (the “SmPC”) or Patient Information Leaflets (“PIL”) for those countries where that use is protected. This leaves the manufacturer at risk of allegations of patent infringement. Therefore, where the manufacturer of a biosimilar wishes to launch in those countries where the second medical use is patent protected, it must submit a duplicate application with the necessary carve out on the SmPC/PIL.

Under article 82(1) of Regulation 726/2004:

“the Commission shall authorise the same applicant to submit more than one application to the Agency for that medicinal product when there are objective verifiable reasons relating to public health regarding the availability of medicinal products to health-care professionals and/or patients, or for co-marketing reasons.”

A common reason to allow duplicates is where an indication in the original application is protected by a patent in a Member State. Although this may overcome the issue of the carve out, it in turn creates further issues. Although it is clear that the original application and the duplicate are the same product, under EU regulations each application requires a separate name for the medicinal product to be submitted. This has an impact on patient care, for the same product will have a different name in different countries. This may result in patients being prevented from accessing their prescribed medicine in different countries, but it may also create confusion for both patients and healthcare professionals alike. Once the second use patents have expired, doctors would need to switch the name of the prescribed medicine to that used in the original application to ensure harmonisation. Indeed the applicant must provide a commitment letter upon application undertaking to ensure that once the patent expires, the shortened label is extended to include the indication that was patent protected. In that respect, it is essential that both labels bear the same name. Otherwise, a company will have to re-market the product under the new (and harmonised) name once the patent expires, which has financial implications for manufacturers.

Overcoming these issues would require a reinterpretation of EU regulations. Either the indications that are patent protected by the second medical use are removed before marketing the product in those Member States that afford that protection, or duplicates that are solely applied for due to such patents are allowed to bear the same name. The former approach could be justified under article 11 of Directive 2001/83, and would mean that the centralised procedure is brought into line with the decentralised procedure. The latter approach would require a new interpretation of article 6 of Regulation 726/2004, which states that each application for authorisation “shall include the use of a single name for the medicinal product”. However, as the original and duplicate applications are for the same product, this interpretation should not be problematic.

If you have any questions on this article or would like to propose a subject to be addressed by Synapse please contact us.

Call To Action Arrow Image

Latest insights in your inbox

Subscribe to newsletters on topics relevant to you.

Subscribe
Subscribe

Related Insights

专利与创新

The EU torpedoes itself in cross-border patent disputes

2021年5月6日
Briefing

作者 Paul England, DPhil

点击此处了解更多
酒店与休闲

8+2+1 plus what? How UK data and market exclusivity rights will be affected from 1 January 2021

2020年12月3日
Briefing

作者 Alison Dennis 以及 Paul England, DPhil

点击此处了解更多
pills
酒店与休闲

Targeted treatments – Part 3: the power of orphan drug protection

2020年10月15日
Quick read

作者 Paul England, DPhil

点击此处了解更多