On May 18, 2018, the European Commission ("Commission") launched a public consultation on "Duplicate Marketing Authorisation for Biological Medicinal Products" ("Consultation") in relation to updating its "Note on Handling of Duplicate Marketing Authorisation Applications" ("Note on Duplicate MAs1"). The Commission wants to learn about the potential impact of duplicate marketing authorizations ("MAs") for "friendly" biosimilars, i.e., biosimilars developed by the innovators of the reference biological medicinal products. Comments are due by September 10, 2018.
Article 82(1) of Regulation 726/2004 expressly prohibited more than one MA for centrally authorized medicinal products, with two exceptions: (i) when there are objective verifiable reasons relating to public health regarding the availability of medicinal products to healthcare professionals and/or patients ("public health") or (ii) for co-marketing. The prohibition of duplicate MAs and its exceptions apply to both chemical and biological medicinal products. The Commission is entrusted with applying the exceptions and authorizing duplicate MAs. The Note on Duplicate MAs concerns the application of Article 82(1) – see below.
The Note on Duplicate MAs gives friendly generics as an example of the public health exception. While friendly biosimilars should logically benefit from this exception as well, the Commission seems to have found that they should not because they may not increase the availability of medicinal products. If this finding is confirmed by the public consultation, obtaining duplicate MAs for friendly biosimilars would be more difficult than for friendly generics.
Article 82(1) of Regulation 726/2004
The objective of the centralized marketing authorization procedure is to have, for each medicinal product, one authorization and one name valid throughout the European Union. Article 82(1), first indent of Regulation 726/2004, thus limits to one the number of MAs that may be granted to medicinal products authorized through the centralized marketing authorization procedure.
The second indent, however, empowers the Commission to authorize more than one MA for a specific 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."
Commission's Note on Duplicate Marketing Authorizations
For a long time, companies were basically left without guidance with regard to duplicate MAs. A few explanations had been given by the European Medicines Agency on the procedure to follow for requesting the Commission's authorization, but the criteria for obtaining such authorization remained unclear. The Commission was deciding on a case-by-case basis, and the grounds for allowing or refusing duplicate MAs were not publicly disclosed. On March 30, 2010, the Commission finally issued the Note on Duplicate MAs, which it updated about one year later.
Basic Principles and Conditions. Before defining the scope of application of Article 82(1) and detailing the authorization criteria, the Commission "sets the scene" by stressing the basic principles, i.e., (i) assessment of each request on a case-by-case basis, taking into account the factual circumstances of each case; (ii) restrictive interpretation of Article 82(1), second indent, because it constitutes an exception from the general rule of a single MA per medicinal product and per MA holder; and (iii) importance of the objectives of preserving public health and harmonizing centrally authorized products.
Scope of Application – Same Medicinal Product and Same Applicant. Article 82(1), second indent, only concerns an MA application ("MAA") submitted by an applicant regarding a medicinal product for which he was already granted an MA under the centralized procedure. This provision thus concerns a "same medicinal product" (material scope) and a "same applicant" (personal scope).
"Same Medicinal Product" – For determining whether the medicinal product is the "same," the Commission refers to:
- its 1998 Communication on the Community marketing authorization procedures for medicinal products:2 any medicinal products with the same qualitative and quantitative composition in active substance (i.e., the same strength) and the same pharmaceutical form are to be considered as the same relevant product; and
- Article 10(2)(b) of Directive 2001/83/CE: the different salts, esters, ethers, isomers, mixtures of isomers, complexes or derivatives of an active substance are to be considered to be the same active substance unless they differ significantly in properties with regard to safety and/or efficacy.
This means that an MAA for the following medicinal products does not require a prior Commission authorization under Article 82(1): a medicinal product with a different active substance; a medicinal product with a different salt of an approved active substance that differs significantly in properties regarding safety or efficacy; a medicinal product with different excipients resulting in significant differences with regard to safety or efficacy; or a medicinal product with a different manufacturer or manufacturing site resulting in its characteristics (notably in the case of biological products) leading to significant differences regarding safety or efficacy.
On the other hand, a duplicate MA for a different therapeutic indication requires a prior Commission authorization even in the case of an orphan indication for a medicinal product that is not orphan (i.e., in cases where a separate MA is mandatory). So also do MAAs for generic medicinal products, hybrid medicinal products or "informed consent" medicinal products. The key criterion is whether both MAAs relate to a medicinal product with the same qualitative and quantitative composition in active substances and the same pharmaceutical form.
A duplicate MA may contain less therapeutic indications or pharmaceutical forms than the original MA when this is necessary to market the product in EU member states where a specific indication or pharmaceutical form is protected by patent law. However, the applicant must commit to extend the indication(s)/pharmaceutical form(s) of the duplicate MA or to withdraw the duplicate MA once the remaining patent protection expires, and the commitment letter should be provided with the MAA dossier. The harmonization of summary of product characteristics ("SmPCs") across the European Union being one of the basic pillars of the centralized procedure, applicants of duplicate MAs should not market two products with different indications/strengths/pharmaceutical forms in the same country.
"Same applicant" – For determining whether an applicant is the same, the Commission applies again the 1998 Communication on the Community marketing authorization procedures for medicinal products, which defines "same entity" as a company that belongs to the same group of companies or as a company that has entered into a license agreement or has otherwise agreed to the marketing of the medicinal product.
By way of examples, the Commission stresses that Article 82(1) does not apply where an applicant is an independent company that entered into a license agreement, purchase agreement or data agreement with the MA holder of the product but not for the placing of that product on the market.
2 1998 OJ C229/4.
To view the article please click here.
Visit us at mayerbrown.com
Mayer Brown is a global legal services provider comprising legal practices that are separate entities (the "Mayer Brown Practices"). The Mayer Brown Practices are: Mayer Brown LLP and Mayer Brown Europe – Brussels LLP, both limited liability partnerships established in Illinois USA; Mayer Brown International LLP, a limited liability partnership incorporated in England and Wales (authorized and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority and registered in England and Wales number OC 303359); Mayer Brown, a SELAS established in France; Mayer Brown JSM, a Hong Kong partnership and its associated entities in Asia; and Tauil & Chequer Advogados, a Brazilian law partnership with which Mayer Brown is associated. "Mayer Brown" and the Mayer Brown logo are the trademarks of the Mayer Brown Practices in their respective jurisdictions.
© Copyright 2018. The Mayer Brown Practices. All rights reserved.
This Mayer Brown article provides information and comments on legal issues and developments of interest. The foregoing is not a comprehensive treatment of the subject matter covered and is not intended to provide legal advice. Readers should seek specific legal advice before taking any action with respect to the matters discussed herein.