• Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer
+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 0
[email protected]
Contact form
Patent- & Rechtsanwaltskanzlei

Patent- & Rechtsanwaltskanzlei

  • Deutsch

+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 0

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Instagram
  • LinkedIn
  • xing
  • Email
MENUMENU
  • Services
    • Advice On Protective IP Rights
    • Patent Application /TM Registration
    • Enforcement Of IP Rights
    • Defence Against IP Rights Enforcement
    • Costs
  • Company
    • Fields of Law
      • Patent Law
      • Utility Model Law
      • Employees‘ Inventions
      • Trademark Law
      • Design Law
      • Trademark and Product Piracy
      • Expert Opinions
    • Our Law Firm
      • Dr. Karl-Hermann Meyer-Dulheuer
      • Dr. Tim Meyer-Dulheuer
      • Dr. Klaus Zimmermann
      • Zhichao Ying
      • Eva Maria Amoah
    • Commitment
  • Contact
    • Where To Find Us
    • Write us!
    • Request call back
  • Blog

Documents for medicinal product approval: no general presumption of confidentiality

23. January 2020

Pharmaceutical manufacturers can only prevent information from applications for marketing authorisation for a medicinal product from being made available to other competitors if there is a well-founded and substantiated suspicion of abuse. The documents are not necessarily confidential, the ECJ ruled, and there is no general presumption of confidentiality.

Marketing authorisation for a medicinal product

presumption of confidentialityThe approval for new drugs and the corresponding marketing authorisation is the responsibility of the European Medicines Agency (EMA). Pharmaceutical manufacturers must submit detailed reports on the medicinal product with the marketing authorisation application. The confidentiality of such a report and access to this report also for competitors was the subject of the hearing between appellant PTC Therapeutics International Ltd (Ireland) and the EMA, which was decided yesterday by the European Court of Justice (ECJ).

In this context maybe this is also an interesting article in our blog: To bring an action without revealing trade secrets

General presumption of confidentiality or right of access for others?

In the present case concerning the marketing of the medicinal product Translarna, an application to this effect had initially been rejected by the EMA. Subsequently, another pharmaceutical company applied for access to the medical report. The EMA informed PTC Therapeutics and the company then applied to the EMA to treat the disputed report in its entirety as confidential. This was rejected by resolution and the EMA granted access to the entire disputed report, subject to certain redactions.

The European Court therefore had to decide whether the exceptions to the right of access provided for in Article 4 of Regulation 1049/2001 should have applied to this case. The EMA took the view that exceptions to the right of access should only have applied to this report in its entirety if it had been shown that each element of the disputed report constituted confidential commercial information. However, this had not been done.

Rejection only in case of well-founded suspicion of abuse

The EMA was not obliged to rely on a general presumption of confidentiality, but was allowed to carry out a concrete and individual examination of the document in question in order to determine whether and to what extent it could be made accessible. The EMA had also carried out a concrete and individual examination of the entire contested report, as it had caused certain parts of the text to be rendered unrecognisable and blacked out, explained the ECJ.

It should also be stressed that any body such as the EMA which rejects an application for access to a document – on the basis of one of the exceptions under Article 4 of Regulation No 1049/2001 – must give reasons for such a rejection. It must explain in what way access to the document in question could specifically and effectively harm the interest protected by that exception. Nor is this an exercise of the EMA’s own discretion, as PTC Therapeutics argued in court, but a concrete and individual examination of the disputed documents.

Admittedly, the misuse of data obtained through access to a document could under certain circumstances harm the commercial interests of a company, the ECJ conceded. However, an unproven indication of a general risk of misuse could not lead to a refusal of access to documents.

The ECJ therefore rejected in its entirety the arguments of the appellant PTC Therapeutics. Pharmaceutical manufacturers can only prevent information from applications for marketing authorisation for medicinal products from being made available to other competitors if there is a well-founded and substantiated suspicion of abuse.

Medicinal product approval and patent protection – an issue for you too?

Our lawyers will be happy to advise you. If you are interested, please contact us – we look forward to your call!


 

 

Sources: 

Judgement of ECJ “General presumption of confidentiality”, EU:C:2020:23

Image:

stevepb / pixabay.com / CCO License | OpenClipart-Vectors / pixabay.com / CCO License

  • share  
  • share 
  • share 
  • tweet  
  • share 

Category iconHealthcare & Lifesciences Tag iconmedicinal product,  EMA,  rejection,  PTC Therapeutics,  Translarna,  placing a drug on the market,  documents for drug approval,  suspicion of abuse,  no general presumption of confidentiality,  presumption of confidentiality

Reader Interactions

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Primary Sidebar

More articles about: Healthcare & Lifesciences

All articles

Blog Menu

  • Design Law
  • Healthcare & Lifesciences
  • International Intellectual Property
  • Licenses
  • News from our law firm
  • Overall
  • Patent Law
  • Product- and Trademark piracy
  • Trademark Law
This form uses Google Recaptcha.

You must accept cookies from Google recaptcha to use this form.

More information can be found in our privacy policy.

load form

Recent Posts

  • Chianti vs GHISU: advantage taken unfairly of the earlier mark 15. April 2021
  • ECJ on legitimate interest: Appeal against amendment of specifications 15. April 2021
  • Case law product similarity: consumer attention 13. April 2021
  • OLG Düsseldorf: No compensation for damages of gratuitous licensing 9. April 2021

Fields of Law

  • Patent Law
  • Utility Model Law
  • Employees’ Inventions
  • Trademark Law
  • Design Law
  • Trademark and Product Piracy
  • Expert Opinions
  • Costs

Das könnte Sie auch interessieren:

29. March 2021
EuGH / Case Lundbeck:  Restriction by object

EuGH / Case Lundbeck: Restriction by object

1. December 2020
BGH: Criteria for SPC on active ingredient combinations

BGH: Criteria for SPC on active ingredient combinations

9. November 2020
BioNTech: Success with the Corona vaccine

BioNTech: Success with the Corona vaccine

3. November 2020
BPatG: medicinal products must be identifiable

BPatG: medicinal products must be identifiable

4. August 2020
Biocidal composition for antibiotics: Clariant patent remains revoked

Biocidal composition for antibiotics: Clariant patent remains revoked

14. July 2020
ECJ and grant SPC for new therapeutic use

ECJ and grant SPC for new therapeutic use

Footer

Contact

Franklinstr. 61-63
D-60486 Frankfurt am Main
Germany

+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 0
+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 199
[email protected]

Customer Reviews

Meyer-Dulheuer MD Legal Patentanwälte PartG mbB Patentrecht, Markenrecht, Eigentum hat 4,78 von 5 Sternen 23 Bewertungen auf ProvenExpert.com

Fields of Law

  • Patent Law
  • Utility Model Law
  • Employees’ Inventions
  • Trademark Law
  • Design Law
  • Trademark and Product Piracy
  • Expert Opinions
  • Costs

Law Firm

  • Request non-binding call back
  • Info secure emails
  • Company
  • Our Law Firm
  • ISO Certificate
  • Privacy Policy
  • Data handling for clients
  • Imprint

Follow Us

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Google+
  • LinkedIn
  • xing
  • Email

Newsletter Signup

This form uses Google Recaptcha.

You must accept cookies from Google recaptcha to use this form.

More information can be found in our privacy policy.

load form

© Patent- & Rechtsanwaltskanzlei Meyer-Dulheuer MD Legal Patentanwälte PartG mbB

Kontaktformular

 

Rufen Sie uns an, schicken Sie uns eine Mail oder füllen Sie das Kontaktformular aus.

+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 0
[email protected]

This form uses Google Recaptcha.

You must accept cookies from Google recaptcha to use this form.

More information can be found in our privacy policy.

load form

Contact Form

 

Give us a call, send us an email or fill out the contact form.

+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 0
[email protected]

This form uses Google Recaptcha.

You must accept cookies from Google recaptcha to use this form.

More information can be found in our privacy policy.

load form