Keeping pace with the ever-changing life sciences industry, Morrison Foerster stays on top of the trends and political, legal, and economic drivers to support striking the balance between innovative discovery and purposeful business planning to assure our clients continued success. MoFo Life Sciences shares timely legal and business insights and in-depth analyses on trends and the complex technologies at the heart of the global pharmaceutical, biotechnology, diagnostics, medical devices, digital health, and AgTech fields.Learn more about our <a href="https://www.mofo.com/capabilities/life-sciences-healthcare" target="_self">Life Sciences practice</a>.<h2 dir="ltr">ABOUT MORRISON FOERSTER</h2>Morrison Foerster is a leading global law firm that transforms complexity into advantage for its clients. Our clients include some of the largest financial institutions, banks, consulting and accounting firms, and Fortune 100, technology, and life sciences companies. Highlighting the firm’s commitment to client service, leadership in market-changing deals and impact litigation, and values-based culture, Morrison Foerster has been repeatedly recognized as one of the top 10 firms on The American Lawyer’s A-List. Year after year, the firm receives significant recognition from Chambers and The Legal 500 across their various guides, including Global, USA, Asia‑Pacific, Europe, UK, Latin America, and FinTech Legal. Our lawyers passionately care about delivering legal excellence while living our values. Morrison Foerster has a long-standing commitment to creating a culture that respects and celebrates differences, while providing an inclusive environment. The firm has achieved Mansfield Certification Plus since 2018 as a result of successfully reaching at least 30 percent women, communities of color, and LGBTQ+ lawyer representation in a notable number of current leadership roles and committees. The firm also has a long history of commitment to the community and society through providing pro bono legal services, including litigating for civil rights and civil liberties, improving public education and fostering the wellbeing of children, advocating for veterans, promoting international human rights, enforcing the right to asylum, and safeguarding the environment.

Social

Search

Subscribe

Life Sciences and Healthcare Group

Life Sciences Podcast

Patent Counseling + Prosecution

FDA Regulatory + Life Sciences Compliance

FDA + Healthcare Regulatory and Compliance 

Life Sciences Transactions + Licensing

Resources

Editors

230315-new-mofo-life-sciences-logo.jpg

Dr. Meghan Poon counsels clients on patent preparation and prosecution, portfolio strategy, and IP due diligence in the areas of biotechnology and biologics. She has significant experience in diverse technologies including antibodies, cell therapies, gene therapies, diagnostics, and gene-edited plants. She represents clients ranging from large international pharmaceutical companies to midsized companies, startups, and universities.Meghan has filed numerous Patent Term Extension applications to secure additional term for her clients’ patents, which cover FDA-approved products. In addition, Meghan has extensive experience addressing complex obviousness-double patenting and subject matter eligibility issues impacting her clients’ patent portfolios. Meghan also represents clients in both investor-side and target-side due diligence, in deals from seed funding to initial public offerings.Prior to law school, Meghan attended graduate school at the University of California, Los Angeles, where she received a Ph.D. in biological chemistry based on her work on protein-protein and protein-DNA interactions at a molecular level. Meghan is the author of several scientific publications and has presented her research at international conferences.Meghan received her J.D. from the University of Southern California Law School and spent a year as a visiting student at Santa Clara University, where she focused on intellectual property.

poon_meghan_blog_150x150.png

poon_meghan_common_640x280.jpg

poon_meghan_heroretina_2700x1160.jpg

poon_meghan_mobileretina_750x1040.jpg

poon_meghan_social_600x600.jpg

Partner

Morrison Foerster's patent prosecution and patent strategy team is highly qualified with more than 100 advanced degrees and multilingual capabilities.

With 80+ Ph.D.s, more than 100 advanced degrees, and multi-lingual capabilities, including Chinese and German, we offer clients around the world a patent prosecution and counseling practice that is unrivaled in its depth of industry and technical experience.

Patent Strategy + Prosecution

Patent Prosecution | Patent Firm

Band 1: Intellectual Property: Patent Prosecution, California

Tier 1: Patent Strategy & Management

Recommended: Patent Prosecution

Patent Strategy Firm Of The Year

 Intellectual Property: Patents: Prosecution

Recommended for Patent Prosecution in California and DC Metro Area

Highly Recommended: Patent Prosecution, California

Patent Prosecution, US 

Dr. Meghan Poon counsels clients on patent preparation and prosecution, portfolio strategy, and IP due diligence in the areas of biotechnology and biologics. She has significant experience in diverse technologies including antibodies, cell therapies, gene therapies, diagnostics, and gene-edited plants.

Meghan Poon

Wolfgang advises clients on contentious and non-contentious matters involving their most valuable intellectual property assets in life sciences, digital, and high-tech industries.His subjects of focus include research and development collaborations, complex licensing agreements, and other technology transactions, as well as know-how protection strategies, and employee invention law. He also has substantial experience in litigating patents, trademarks, and other intellectual property assets, often in a multijurisdictional context. In addition, Wolfgang and his team frequently clear trademarks and ad campaigns and prosecute trademark applications.Wolfgang is co-editor of our <a href="https://lifesciences.mofo.com/" dir="ltr" target="_blank">MoFo Life Sciences Blog</a>.Wolfgang is a partner of Morrison Foerster based in our German office in Berlin.<h4 dir="ltr">Representative Transactional Matters</h4><ul dir="ltr"><li>U.S.-based BioTech fund on various research collaborations and other transactions with German start-ups or research institutions.</li><li>Negotiate multimillion-euro strategic partnership between two AgTech leaders concerning the development and commercialization of pest-resistant transgenic traits.</li><li>Craft global multi-million collaboration regarding AI-powered robotic MaaS.</li><li>UK-based digital health company on product roll-out of RPM applications in Germany; coordinate international expansion.</li><li>Advise numerous German start-ups on their U.S. expansion.</li><li>Draft diverse global patent and know-how license agreements in the areas of AgTech and life sciences—including gene licensing and licensing of genome editing technologies (e.g., CRISPR)—and medical devices; draft correlating supply and distribution agreements.</li><li>Structure IP rights in connection with joint ventures and other M&A transactions, including the carve-out of a patent-heavy semiconductor business comprising nine jurisdictions into a German–U.S. joint venture.</li><li dir="ltr">Advise on government-funded, multi-partner R&D projects and/or R&D projects with academic institutions, as well as on employee invention law.</li></ul><h4 dir="ltr">Representative Contentious IP Matters</h4><ul dir="ltr"><li>Lead counsel in an international dispute between software companies on rights and obligations following termination of a multi-million licensing and distribution arrangement; coordinate local counsel.</li><li>Defend Japanese chip manufacturer in high-profile SEP-litigation; advise on global settlement arrangement.</li><li>Represent leading internet retailer in patent infringement and concurrent invalidity proceedings in the context of a multijurisdictional dispute concerning touch-screen technology.</li><li>Represent diverse pharmaceutical and life sciences companies in national and cross-border patent infringement proceedings and other technology-related disputes, including preliminary injunctions as well as pre‑trial discovery and inspection proceedings, concerning, inter alia, drug-coating technologies, toner cartridges, medicinal gases, transgenic plants, and vaccines.</li><li dir="ltr">Conduct trademark, copyright, and false advertising litigation, including, most notably, a high-profile trademark litigation for a German bank, and a nine-country cross-border trademark litigation involving a famous pharmaceutical brand.</li></ul>

Dr. Wolfgang Schönig berät Mandanten zum Schutz des geistigen Eigentums sowohl in streitigen als auch nichtstreitigen Angelegenheiten, mit einem besonderen Fokus auf die IP-rechtliche Beratung von Unternehmen aus den Bereichen Life Sciences, Digitalwirtschaft und High-Tech.Zu seinen Beratungsschwerpunkten gehören Forschungs- und Entwicklungskooperationen, komplexe Lizenzvertragsgestaltungen und andereTechnologie-Transaktionen, sowie Know-how-Schutz-Strategien und das Arbeitnehmererfinderrecht. Er verfügt zudem über umfangreiche Prozesserfahrung zur Durchsetzung von Patenten, Marken- und anderen IP-Rechten, häufig auch in einem grenzüberschreitenden Kontext. Darüber hinaus bewertet Dr. Wolfgang Schönig zusammen mit seinem Team regelmäßig die Rechtskonformität von Werbekampagnen, prüft die Verfügbarkeit von Marken und entwickelt entsprechende Anmeldestrategien.Dr. Wolfgang Schönig ist Co-Editor des Life Sciences Blogs von Morrison Foerster.Er hat seinen Doktortitel an der Heinrich-Heine-Universität Düsseldorf und seinen LL.M. an der Fordham School of Law in New York erworben, jeweils mit Schwerpunkt im gewerblichen Rechtsschutz. Seinen MBA-Abschluss erhielt er von der European University in Barcelona.Dr. Wolfgang Schönig ist Partner des deutschen Büros von Morrison Foerster in Berlin.<h4 dir="ltr">Repräsentative Transaktionen</h4><ul><li dir="ltr">BioTech-Fonds mit Sitz in den USA bei verschiedenen Forschungskooperationen und anderen Transaktionen mit deutschen Start-ups oder Forschungseinrichtungen</li><li dir="ltr">Verhandlung einer hochvolumigen strategischen Partnerschaft zwischen zwei Technologieführern im Bereich Crop Science betreffend der Entwicklung und Kommerzialisierung von bestimmten Resistenzen</li><li dir="ltr">Gestaltung einer globalen Multi-Millionen-Zusammenarbeit für KI-gestützte Roboter</li><li dir="ltr">Ein in Großbritannien ansässiges Unternehmen für digitale Gesundheit bei der Markteinführung von RPM-Anwendungen in Deutschland; Koordination der internationalen Expansion</li><li dir="ltr">Beratung zahlreicher deutscher Start-ups bei deren US-Expansion</li><li dir="ltr">Strukturierung und Verhandlung diverser Patent- und Know-How-Lizenzen in den Bereichen Ag Tech und Life Sciences – einschließlich Fragen zu genome editing wie CRISPR-Medizingeräte, sowie Gestaltung von Softwarelizenzverträgen und Erstellung korrespondierender Liefer- und Vertriebsvereinbarungen</li><li dir="ltr">Strukturierung von IP-Rechten im Zusammenhang mit Joint Ventures und anderen M&A-Transaktionen, darunter die Koordination eines neun Länder umfassenden IP Carve-Outs im Rahmen eines Halbleiter-JVs</li><li dir="ltr">Beratung zu staatlich geförderten Multi-Partner F&E-Projekten und/oder F&E-Projekten mit akademischen Einrichtungen sowie zum Arbeitnehmererfindungsrecht</li></ul><h4 dir="ltr">Repräsentative IP-Streitigkeiten</h4><ul><li dir="ltr">Lead Counsel in einem internationalen Rechtsstreit zwischen Softwareunternehmen über Rechte und Pflichten nach Beendigung einer millionenschweren Lizenz- und Vertriebsvereinbarung; Koordinierung der lokalen Anwälte</li><li dir="ltr">Verteidigung eines japanischen Chipherstellers in einem prominenten Streitfall bezüglich Standardessentieller Patente (SEP); Beratung zu einer globalen Vergleichsregelung</li><li dir="ltr">Verteidigung einer führenden Internetplattform gegen Ansprüche eines Patenttrolls wegen vermeintlicher Verletzung von Patent bezüglich Touchscreen-Technologie sowie korrespondierende US-Streitigkeiten</li><li dir="ltr">Vertretung von Pharma- und Life Science-Unternehmen in nationalen und grenzüberschreitenden Patentverletzungsverfahren und anderen technologiebezogenen Streitigkeiten, einschließlich einstweiliger Verfügungsverfahren und vorprozessualer Beweissicherungs- und Besichtigungsverfahren, unter anderem in Bezug auf Arzneimittelbeschichtungstechnologien, Tonerkartuschen, medizinische Gase, transgene Pflanzen und Impfstoffe</li></ul>

schonig_wolfgang_blog_150x150.png

schonig_wolfgang_common_640x280.jpg

schonig_wolfgang_heroretina_2700x1160.jpg

schonig_wolfgang_mobileretina_750x1040.jpg

schonig_wolfgang_social_600x600.jpg

Our life sciences and healthcare clients, from emerging innovation drivers to iconic brands, rely on our unrivaled depth of knowledge and technological experien

Life Sciences: IP/Patent Litigation

Life Sciences

Global: Life Sciences

Asia-Pacific Region: Life Sciences

Healthcare: Life Sciences

China Healthcare and Life Sciences: Foreign Firms

US: Biotechnology Law

Japan: Life Sciences

China: Life Sciences: International Law Firm

Wolfgang Schönig is a partner of Morrison Foerster (International) LLP based in our German office in Berlin. His practice specialty is advising on IP aspects relative to transactions in, among others, the life sciences, AgTech and pharmaceuticals industry, as well as legal representation in IP disputes. Wolfgang is specialized in research and development collaborations, complex licensing agreements, technology acquisitions, know-how protection strategies, and employee invention law.

Wolfgang Schönig focuses his practice on IP aspects relative to transactions in the digital, telecoms, high tech, life sciences, and pharmaceuticals industry, as well as legal representation in IP disputes.

Wolfgang Schönig advises clients on IP aspects relating to transactions in, among others, the life sciences, AgTech and pharmaceuticals industry, as well as legal representation in IP disputes. His additional focus areas include research and development collaborations, complex licensing agreements, technology acquisitions, know-how protection strategies, and employee invention law.

Wolfgang Schönig

favicon.ico

favicon-16x16.png

favicon-32x32.png

apple-touch-icon.png

MoFo Favicons

MoFo Life Sciences shares timely legal and business insights and in-depth analyses on trends and the complex technologies at the heart of the global pharmaceutical, biotechnology, diagnostics, medical devices, digital health, and AgTech fields.

life-sciences-featured-image.jpg

life-sciences-featured-image

Announcements

Welcome to Mofo Life Sciences

Blog - Terms of Use

Cookies

Blog - Privacy Policy

Blog - Blog Disclaimer

Blog - Attorney Advertising

morrison-foerster-blog-logo.png

Brings together legal insights and in-depth analyses on trends and complex issues shaping the global technology industry.

MoFo Tech Blog

MOFO TECH

Equips our clients with the most up-to-date and relevant information on employment and labor law issues.

Employment Law Commentary

EMPLOYMENT LAW COMMENTARY

Stay on top of emerging issues and stay informed of developments related to the law and business of social media.

Socially Aware

SOCIALLY AWARE

In-depth analysis of developments and trends impacting government contracting.

Government Contracts Insights Blog

GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS INSIGHTS

Provides insights and reports on the most current class actions lawsuits and product liability issues that affect consumer-facing companies.

Class Dismissed Blog

CLASS DISMISSED

MoFo Life Sciences

  Linkedin

MoFo LinkedIN

Life Sciences Blog - RSS

Stay Connected

Never miss a post from MoFo Life Sciences. Enter your email below to stay up-to-date.

Because No One is Immune to the Law

Morrison Foerster - Footer

Blogs -  Home Button

Home

Blog - Topics

Agtech

Antitrust

Asia

Bioinformatics

Biotech

Blockchain

Cell + Gene Therapy

CFIUS

Corporate + Venture Capital

COVID-19

Data Analytics

Digital Health

Employment

European Union

Financing

Global

Healthcare

Intellectual Property

Licensing + Commercial

Litigation

Medical Devices + Diagnostics

Pharma

Privacy + Data Security

Product Liability + Class Action

Rare Disease

Regulatory

Startup

United Kingdom

United States

Topics

Blog - Editors

Blog - About

About

Blog - Subscribe

Meghan McLean Poon Ph.D.

More

Patent-Eligibility Considerations & Prosecution Strategies for AI-Based Life Sciences Patent Applications

AI Transparency in Healthcare: Navigating a Changing Regulatory Landscape

Recentive: Raising the Patent-Eligibility Bar in AI-Related Inventions

April 2025 Update on Regulation of New Genomic Techniques in the EU

In Patent Prosecution, You Have the Right to Remain Silent. Anything You Say Can and Will Be Used Against You in the Court of Law

LinkedIN

Following up on its announcement in the EU Employment, Social Policy, Health and Consumer Affairs Council (EPSCO) Meeting, the European Commission (Commission) released on January 6, 2023, <a href="https://health.ec.europa.eu/system/files/2023-01/mdr_proposal.pdf">a proposal</a> (Proposal) to amend the transitional regime under the <a href="https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2017/745/2020-04-24">Medical Device Regulations</a> (MDR) and certain related rules under the<a href="https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2017/746/2022-01-28"> In Vitro Diagnostic Medical Device Regulations</a> (IVDR). It is based on suggestions made by the Commission at the end of last year, which we have already discussed on our <a href="https://lifesciences.mofo.com/topics/eu-mdr-and-ivdr-implementation-signs-of-relaxing-transitioning-regime-and-bridging-measures#_ftnref4">MoFo Life Sciences blog</a>.The Commission proposes:<ul><li>an extension of the validity of certificates (MDR),</li><li>an extension of the transition period (MDR), and</li><li> the removal of the “sell-off” periods (MDR and IVDR).</li></ul>As becomes apparent from the above, the changes to the transition periods are limited to the MDR. The transitional regime of the IVDR was extended already at the beginning of 2022, so that the Commission deems the capacity challenges to no longer be so severe for in vitro diagnostics. We discussed the IVDR transitional periods in our previous blog post <a href="https://lifesciences.mofo.com/topics/eu-in-vitro-diagnostic-regulation-entered-into-force--part-2-of-3.html">here</a>.BackgroundThere is a uniform understanding that an extension of the MDR/IVDR transitional regime is indispensable to combat a potential European health crisis and maintain patients’ access to a wide range of medical devices while ensuring the transition to the MDR framework. Our previous blog post discussed the lack of clarity in the <a href="https://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-15520-2022-INIT/en/pdf">Commission’s initial suggestions of December 2022</a> (Initial Suggestions). Among other things, the Initial Suggestions imprecisely specified the conditions to be fulfilled for a device to be covered by the proposed extended transitional periods. In terms of the extension of the validity of certificates, it was also unclear whether certain “legal and practical reasons” would serve as a criterion for such an extension and how the Commission would fill these terms with live. Moreover, it was unclear whether an extension would be granted retroactively to certificates already expired at the time of entering into force of the proposal.Details of the ProposalThe new Proposal brings more clarity for stakeholders.Extension of the transition period (Article 1(1), point (b) of the proposal)The Commission suggests to extend the transition period for higher-risk devices (class III and class IIb implantable devices, except certain devices for which the MDR provides exemptions) from May 26, 2024, until December 31, 2027, and for medium- and lower-risk devices (other class IIb devices and class IIa, Im, Is, and Ir devices) until December 31, 2028.The extended transitional periods only apply if the following conditions are met:<ul><li>devices continue to comply with <a href="https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/dir/1993/42/oj">Medical Devices Directive</a> (MDD) and <a href="https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/dir/1990/385/2007-10-11">Active Implantable Medical Devices Directive</a> (AMDD);</li><li>there are no significant changes in the design and intended purpose;</li><li>the devices do not present an unacceptable risk to the health or safety of patients, users, or other persons, or to other aspects of the protection of public health;</li><li>no later than May 26, 2024, the manufacturer has put in place a quality management system in accordance with Article 10(9) MDR;</li><li>no later than May 26, 2024, the manufacturer, or its authorized representative, has lodged a formal application in accordance with Annex VII, Section 4.3 of the MDR for a conformity assessment in respect of a “legacy device” covered by a Directive’s certificate or declaration of conformity, or in respect of a device intended to substitute that device under the MDR, and no later than September 26, 2024, the notified body and the manufacturer have signed a written agreement in accordance with Annex VII, Section 4.3 of the MDR.</li></ul>The proposed amendment further introduces a transition period until May 26, 2026, for class III custom-made implantable devices, which are currently not covered by Article 120(3) MDR.Extension of the validity of certificates (Article 1(1) point (a) of the proposal)The Commission further proposes to amend Article 120(2) MDR to extend the validity of certificates previously issued under the MDD that were valid on the day of the MDR’s date of application (May 26, 2021) and have not been withdrawn by a notified body. Certificates are intended to remain valid for the duration of the proposed extended transition period of the respective risk class applicable for the device set forth above.For certificates that have already expired at the time the amendments to the MDR, as suggested by the Proposal, take effect, the extension would be subject to the condition that, before the date of expiry of the MDD certificate, the manufacturer signed a written agreement with a notified body for the conformity assessment of the device in question. Or if no such agreement has been signed at the time of the expiry of the validity of the MDD certificate, a national competent authority has granted a derogation from the applicable conformity assessment procedure in accordance with Article 59 MDR or has required the manufacturer to carry out the conformity assessment procedure within a specific time period in accordance with Article 97 MDR.Removal of the “sell-off” deadline in the MDR and IVDR (Article 1(1), point (c) and Article 2(1) of the proposal)It is further proposed to remove the current “sell-off” date in Article 120(4) MDR (May 27, 2025) and in Article 110(4) IVDR (May 25, 2025 to May 26, 2028). In this case, devices placed on the market before the respective end of the transition period could be made further available on the market without a legal time restriction.Assessment of the proposed amendmentsAlbeit announced for the beginning of 2023, many stakeholders doubted that the Commission would issue the Proposal at this rapid pace. By doing so, the Commission clearly recognized the urgent risks of medical device shortages in the European Union as a result of MDR implementation challenges.Stakeholders in the industry have already signaled that they very much welcome the proposed extensions. From a legal perspective, the Proposal brings one thing above all: more clarity.In particular, the conditions to be met for a device to be covered by the proposed extended transitional periods have been clarified. Whereas the Commission’s Initial Suggestions vaguely stated that certain steps to initiate certification procedures under the MDR are required, it is now clear that the manufacturer must, among other things, have lodged a formal application for a conformity assessment and have signed a written agreement with such notified body. Of course, this does not mean that manufacturers can lean back and slow down their transition efforts. To the contrary, given the notorious capacity issues at notified bodies, it will be critical for them to move fast to secure a signed contract with a notified body in time.Moreover, it is a huge step that MDD certificates will be extended and that even MDD certificates already expired at the time of entering into force of the Proposal’s amendments will benefit from such an extension. Yet, these manufacturers will have to be able to demonstrate that the devices in question are in “transition” before expiry of the respective MDR certificate. This is not only a prerequisite under the Proposal, which requires a written contract with the notified body, but, according to the position paper of the Medical Device Coordination Group (MDCG) (MDCG 2022-18), also a criterion to obtain an extension by a competent authority pursuant to Article 97 MDR. Finally, the removal of the “sell-off” period in the MDR and IVDR is a major step toward reducing the risk of overstocking and preventing unnecessary disposal of safe medical devices and in vitro diagnostic medical devices.OutlookThe Proposal needs to be adopted by the European Parliament and the Council, and it might still undergo some changes in this process. While it is unclear when and if the proposed amendments will become effective, the previous corrigenda of the MDR have demonstrated that adoption can be swift, which in this case is necessary to ensure that patients and healthcare systems have continuous access to all categories of medical devices. At the moment, stakeholders should further pursue their transition strategy but should closely monitor these critical developments in the coming months. Watch this spot for more updates on this and other EU regulatory matters.MoFo research assistant Nicole Gebert has contributed to this article. ***

Wolfgang advises clients on contentious and non-contentious matters involving their most valuable intellectual property assets in the digital, high-tech, life sciences, and pharmaceutical industries.

grohmann_robert_blog_150x150.png

grohmann_robert_common_640x280.jpg

grohmann_robert_heroretina_2700x1160.jpg

grohmann_robert_mobileretina_750x1040.jpg

grohmann_robert_social_600x600.jpg

Counsel

Robert advises companies from the technology and life sciences sectors on a wide range of commercial, intellectual property (IP) and regulatory matters. His clients range from multinational corporations to startups and scaleups.

Robert Grohmann

Robert Grohmann is counsel at Morrison Foerster’s German office in Berlin. As a member of the technology transactions group, he focuses on advising domestic and foreign companies and startups in all areas of technology and IP law, including patent and software licensing, employee inventions law, as well as know-how protection. Moreover, Mr. Grohmann’s expertise encompasses the judicial and extra-judicial representation in matters of trademark law, design law, and competition law.

230118-european-commission.jpg

EU MDR and IVDR Implementation: European Commission Publishes Full Proposal for Amending Transitional Regime

230118-european-commission

Following up on its announcement in the EU Employment, Social Policy, Health and Consumer Affairs Council (EPSCO) Meeting, the European Commission (Commission) released on January 6, 2023,a proposal (Proposal) to amend the transitional regime under theMedical Device Regulations (MDR) and certain related rules under the In Vitro Diagnostic Medical Device Regulations (IVDR). It is based on suggestions made by the Commission at the end of last year, which we have already discussed on ourMoFo Life Sciences blog.

EU MDR and IVDR Implementation: European Commission Publishes Full Proposal for Amending Transitional Regime

Concerns over possible medical device shortages in the EU have led to two recent developments that will affect the implementation of the <a href="https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2017/745/2020-04-24">Medical Device Regulation</a><a href="#_ftn1" target="_self" id="_ftnref1">[1]</a> (MDR) and <a href="http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2017/746/2022-01-28">In Vitro Diagnostic Medical Device Regulation</a><a href="#_ftn2" target="_self" id="_ftnref2">[2]</a> (IVDR) :<ol><li>The EU Employment, Social Policy, Health and Consumer Affairs Council (EPSCO) discussed the outline of an EU Commission (Commission) proposal for targeted amendments of the transition periods under the MDR and IVDR on December 9, 2022, which will be incorporated into a draft legislation by the beginning of 2023.</li><li>In a new position paper of the Medical Device Coordination Group (MDCG) (MDCG 2022-18), which was announced at the EPSCO meeting and published shortly thereafter, the MDCG discusses the use of bridging measures to provide a temporary solution to certificates that are expiring through application of Article 97 MDR.</li></ol>BackgroundDue to the grave shortage of notified body capacity and the sheer amount of medical devices and in-vitro medical devices (IVD), which need to be recertified under the new legislative framework, most manufacturers will not be able to attain MDR or IVDR certification before the end of the respective transition period, which for medical devices ends as early as May 2024.The scope of the problem is immense: there have been 8,120 applications from manufacturers and 1,990 certificates granted under the MDR so far. By contrast, 22,793 valid certificates issued under the <a href="https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/dir/1993/42/oj">Medical Devices Directive</a><a href="#_ftn3" target="_self" id="_ftnref3">[3]</a> (MDD) and <a href="https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/dir/1990/385/2007-10-11">Active Implantable Medical Devices Directive</a><a href="#_ftn4" target="_self" id="_ftnref4">[4]</a> (AMDD) are due to expire on May 26, 2024, at the latest. If the current rate of certificate issuance continues without change, the number of MDR certificates issued by May 2024 may reach around 7,000. Furthermore, the number of notified bodies remains a bottleneck—36 bodies have been designated under the MDR, but a further 26 applications are currently being processed.Commissions SuggestionsDuring the EPSCO meeting on December 9, 2022, health ministers from the EU member states joined forces to support the Commission’s proposal to extend the transitional provisions in Article 120 MDR, which were already outlined prior to the meeting in a Commission’s <a href="https://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-15520-2022-INIT/en/pdf">information note</a> of December 6, 2022. The Commission precipitated this development in response to urgent concerns expressed by several EU member states, members of the European Parliament, stakeholders, the MDCG and feedback from notified bodies.Among other things, the Commission suggests the following MDR amendments (despite the proposal claiming to extend both the MDR and IVDR, the suggested transition period extensions only cover the MDR):To extend the transitional period in Article 120(3) MDR with staggered deadlines depending on the risk class of the device. Class III and class IIb devices (high risk) may extend to 2027 and class IIa and class I devices (medium risk) may extend to 2028 (low risk);If needed for legal and practical reasons, to extend the validity of MDD/AMDD certificates;Set conditions to be fulfilled in order to ensure that the extension applies only to devices that do not present any unacceptable risk to health and safety, have not undergone significant changes in design or intended purpose and for which the manufacturers have already undertaken the necessary steps to launch the certification process under the MDR, such as adaptation of their quality management system to the MDR and submission and/or acceptance of the manufacturer’s application for conformity assessment by a notified body before a certain deadline (e.g. May 26, 2024); and To remove the ‘sell off’ provision in Article 120(4) MDR.The suggested extended transition periods for medical devices under the MDR would be staggered according to risk classes:<table><tbody><tr><td>Device class</td><td>Current transitional period</td><td>Proposed transition period</td></tr><tr><td>I</td><td>May 26, 2024</td><td>2028</td></tr><tr><td>IIa</td><td></td><td>2028</td></tr><tr><td>IIb</td><td></td><td>2027</td></tr><tr><td>III</td><td></td><td>2027</td></tr></tbody></table>The EPSCO unanimously supported extending the transition periods and opted for a swift adoption. The Commission’s proposal will be presented at the beginning of next year, but it’s unknown what it will entail and to which specific dates the transitional periods will be extended. While it is unclear when the changes will become effective, previous corrigenda have demonstrated that adoption can be swift. It will be worth monitoring further developments and details in the coming months.MDCG Position Paper on the Application of Article 97 MDR to Devices with Expired or Expiring CertificatesThe Commission also saw a need for bridging measures before this legislative change can be implemented, which led to the MDCG position paper (MDCG 2022-18) that seeks to ensure the application of Article 97 MDR to legacy devices under the MDD or AMDD. This is in line with prior position papersMDCG 2022-11 and MDCG 2022-14, which had already indicated the use of Article 97 MDR measures.The original purpose of Article 97 MDR was to allow EU member states to issue exemptions for medical devices that do not comply with the requirements of the MDR, but do not pose an unacceptable risk to patients or other individuals. In this case, the competent authorities (usually the national regulatory agency responsible for medical devices) can require the manufacturer or other relevant economic operators to correct the non-compliance within a reasonable amount of time.The MDCG 2002-18 recommends, with a coordinated set of criteria, that EU member states may apply this mechanism to devices that are ‘in transition’ from the MDD or AMDD to the MDR or, respectively, for which, despite reasonable efforts undertaken by the manufacturer to obtain certification under the MDR, the relevant conformity assessment procedure involving a notified body has not been concluded in time.The major advance of this position paper is that EU member states should recognize Article 97(1) MDR decisions issued by other EU member states, requiring only one application to cover the entire European Union.Manufacturers whose certificates have expired or will expire before receiving their notified body certificate under the MDR are advised to proactively inform the competent authority of the EU member state in which they or their authorized representative have their registered place of business about the forthcoming or incurred non-compliance with the relevant MDR requirements. An evaluation of the risk posed by the device, as well as any other non-compliance requirements, is then required by the competent authority. As long as the competent authority determines that there is no unacceptable risk to health and safety, Article 97(1) MDR will apply.Non-compliance must be resolved within a reasonable and clearly defined timeframe, and the manufacturer should already have undertaken reasonable efforts to transition its device to the MDR. That means, in particular, that the manufacturer’s application for conformity assessment under the MDR should have been accepted by a notified body and a written agreement signed by the notified body and manufacturer in line with section 4.3 of Annex VII MDR.ConclusionBoth developments are to be welcomed, as they have the potential to take an enormous amount of pressure off the market. However, the Commission’s proposal is not final, and there remains a lack of clarity as to the details of the proposed extensions.For example, according to the Commission’s proposal, an extension may only be granted for devices whose manufacturers have already taken steps to initiate certification procedures under the MDR, the uncertainty about what this means poses a problem. Yet it is unclear under which conditions this is the case. Does this require that the manufacturer must only adapt his quality management system, or would the notified body have to have accepted the manufacturer's application for conformity assessment?Moreover, in terms of extensions of MDD certificates, it is unclear when, according to the Commission’s proposal, such an extension is needed for “legal and practical reasons” and whether such an extension would be granted retroactively to already expired certificates.The most significant challenges with respect to the MDCG position paper seem to be that it is unclear how it relates to a proposed extension of the validity period for certificates under Article 120(2) beyond May 26, 2024, and that it remains to be seen how competent authorities will manage the influx of applications for Article 97 MDR exemptions. It is quite conceivable that the competent authorities for Article 97 MDR exemptions turn out to be a bottleneck, just as notified bodies do for MDR certification.Watch this spot for further information on the latest developments in MDR and IVDR implementation.MoFo Research Assistant Nicole Gebert contributed to this article.<hr class="divider"><a href="#_ftnref1" target="_self" id="_ftn1">[1]</a> Regulation (EU) 2017/745 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 April 2017<a href="#_ftnref2" target="_self" id="_ftn2">[2]</a> Regulation (EU) 2017/746 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 April 2017<a href="#_ftnref3" target="_self" id="_ftn3">[3]</a> Council Directive 93/42/EEC of 14 June 1993<a href="#_ftnref4" target="_self" id="_ftn4">[4]</a> Council Directive 90/385/EEC of 20 June 1990

content_(2).jpg

EU MDR and IVDR Implementation: Signs of Relaxing Transitioning Regime and Bridging Measures

Concerns over possible medical device shortages in the EU have led to two recent developments that will affect the implementation of the Medical Device Regulation(MDR) and In Vitro Diagnostic Medical Device Regulation (IVDR)

EU MDR and IVDR Implementation: Signs of Relaxing Transitioning Regime and Bridging Measures

In two recent landmark decisions, Novartis v. Abacus (C‑147/20) and Bayer v. kohlpharma (C-204/20), the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) strengthened the position of drug manufacturers against repackaging practices of parallel importers. The court held that, based on European Union trademark law, the drug manufacturers can stop parallel importers from distributing their medicinal products if they have been repackaged in new outer packaging with the corresponding trademark of their medicinal product affixed.The practice of parallel importers in the medical sectorDue to differing price levels on the pharmaceutical markets in various EU member states, parallel importers buy drugs for a lower price in one market (e.g., Eastern Europe) and sell them at higher prices in other markets (e.g., Germany). The products are either relabeled or the outer packaging is replaced in its entirety in order to change the packaging language. In the latter case, the trademark of the reference product is affixed to such repackaging by the parallel importer. In the current cases, pharmaceutical companies Bayer and Novartis have opposed this repackaging practice of parallel importers kohlpharma and Abacus.Legal framework shaped by CJEU case lawThe CJEU has dealt with parallel imports of medicinal products in several landmark decisions. The starting point is the right of the drug manufacturer to prohibit third parties from using its trademark during trade (Art. 9 para. 2 of the EU trademark regulation 2017/1001). However, due to the principle of free movement of goods within the EU and the fact that the trademark proprietor’s rights are generally exhausted for the entire EU once an individual product bearing the mark has been placed on the EU market (Art. 15 of the EU trademark regulation 2017/1001), it is settled case law that parallel imports of medicinal products are generally permissible (case no. C-16/74). For repackaged products, this is only the case if the conditions carved out by the CJEU in previous decisions (joined case nos. C-427/93, C-429/93, and C-436/93) are fulfilled. The conditions require that (i) repackaging is necessary for commercializing the goods in the import market, (ii) the condition of the goods is not affected, (iii) the repackaging is made transparent on the goods, (iv) the importer informs the manufacturer about the repackaging, and (v) the new presentation does not cause damage to the reputation of the trademark.Repackaging v. relabeling of pharmaceutical productsIn the decisions at hand, the CJEU focuses more closely on the necessity of repackaging over pure relabeling. The court recognizes that repackaging has a stronger impact on the rights of the trademark proprietor than mere relabeling. The court emphasizes that the repackaging must therefore be a necessary means for the importing of the product. This, according to the court, would be the case, if regulations or practices in the importing EU member state prevent the distribution of that product on the market of that EU member state in the same packaging in which the product is distributed in the exporting EU member state. However, it would not be the case if the repackaging of the product is based exclusively on the parallel importer’s desire to obtain an economic advantage.The parallel importers argue that repackaging is necessary due to the requirements of the <a href="https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/human-regulatory/overview/public-health-threats/falsified-medicines-overview#:~:text=The%20European%20Union%20%28EU%29%20has%20a%20strong%20legal,for%20sale%2C%20including%20legitimate%20sale%20via%20the%20internet." target="_blank">EU falsified medicines laws</a>, which provide that all medicinal products sold in the EU must have a unique identifier (i.e., a barcode) and an anti-tampering device (i.e., a security seal to verify whether the packaging of a medicinal product has been opened or altered) to ensure that their content is authentic (see Art. 47a of Directive 2001/81, inserted by Directive 2011/62/EU and Art. 4 Regulation 2016/161). In order to replace the package leaflet of the original product with a package leaflet in the language of the import market, the anti-tampering device will have to be broken. If the packaging would only be relabeled and a new anti-tampering device added, the traces of the damaged original security seal may still remain visible. Parallel importers claim that this would be a major barrier to importing the products into other EU member states as medicinal products with damaged packaging are less likely to be accepted, especially by consumers.In the decisions at hand, the CJEU considered these risks to be less significant. It held that the aforementioned Article 47a(1)(b) of Directive 2001/81 allows reuse only on the condition that the original security features can be replaced by those that are equally suitable for verifying the authenticity and identity of the medicinal products concerned and for providing evidence of their tampering. The fact that wholesalers or consumers may be irritated by traces of a broken anti-tampering device has no bearing, as it only had to be made clear to them that these traces were made by the parallel importer. A general presumption of consumer resistance to relabeled drugs is not sufficient to require repackaging. This may only be different if it was clearly demonstrated that a significant proportion of consumers decided against purchasing the relabeled products. Under these circumstances, the repackaging of the products in new packaging would not be aimed exclusively at an economic advantage, but at gaining effective access to the market.ConclusionThe two CJEU decisions are good news for manufacturers, as they raise the bar for repackaging of parallel imported drugs. Importers will now have to provide proof for each market that the majority of consumers are less likely to buy relabeled products over repackaged products, even when they are informed that relabeling was done by the parallel importer. Otherwise, only relabeling will be permissible.MoFo research assistant Tim Stripling contributed to this article.

Relabeling vs. Repackaging: CJEU Backs Drug Manufacturers’ Position Against Parallel Importers

221214-life-sciences-blog.jpg

221214-life-sciences-blog

In two recent landmark decisions, Novartis v. Abacus (C‑147/20) and Bayer v. kohlpharma (C-204/20), the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) strengthened the position of drug manufacturers against repackaging practices of parallel importers. 

After a myriad of <a href="https://www.mofo.com/resources/insights/200334-europes-unified-patent-court.html?utm_source=publication&utm_medium=email" target="_blank">challenges</a>, <a href="https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/unified-patent-courtunexpected-roadblocks-ahead-germany-sch%C3%B6nig/" target="_blank">delays</a>, and hurdles, the setting up of the pan-European patent court, the Unified Patent Court (UPC), is finally gaining traction. On January 19, 2022, the UPC came into existence as an international organization. This date marks the beginning of the Provisional Application Period (PAP), which was triggered by the thirteenth member state’s ratification of the PAP Protocol. The Administrative Committee, one of three governing bodies of the UPC, had no time to lose and took up its preparatory work with an <a href="https://www.unified-patent-court.org/news/announcement-unified-patent-court-administrative-committees-inaugural-meeting" target="_blank">inaugural meeting</a> on February 22, 2022.  Since then, preparatory measures seem to be in full swing. The interview process for candidate judges began at the end of March 2022. As soon as the Court will be deemed functional, which is expected to take about eight months of preparations, Germany will deposit its ratification of the Unified Patent Court Agreement (UPCA), a final step which it is – in agreement with the other member states – currently holding back in order to control the timeline.  From that moment, the final countdown of three months will be initiated until the UPCA will enter into force and the UPC will open its doors.With the UPC having reached the home stretch, Supplementary Protection Certificates (SPCs) have come into the limelight as the fundamental area of intellectual property (IP) protection that remains fragmented among the member states.SPCs are sui generis IP rights. They grant up to five years (and in cases of pediatric extensions, five and one half years) of additional protection for a medicinal or veterinary product or a plant protection product that has gained market authorization. SPCs were introduced to offset the lengthy process of regulatory proceedings. Protection is based on EU regulation No. 1610/96 (concerning SPCs for plant protection products) and No. 469/2009 (concerning SPCs for medicinal products) (“SPC Regulations”) and is available in all EU member states. However, application and approval is handled on the member state level.  This remained the same despite the advent of the European Patent Package, which introduced the Unitary Patent (UP) and the UPC, but did not provide for unitary SPCs.[The European Patent Package introduced the Unitary Patent (UP), a single patent having effect in all participating EU member states, and the Unified Patent Court (UPC), a court system having jurisdiction over UPs with its decisions having effect in all participating member states.]As a consequence, UPs can only be extended by national SPCs.During an evaluation in 2020, the <a href="https://ec.europa.eu/docsroom/documents/43847" target="_blank">European Commission (EC) found</a> that the SPC system in general provides effective incentives for innovations, and the EC ascertained that the main shortcomings are rooted in the national administration and management of SPCs. Therefore, the EU Parliament called on the EC to address this SPC fragmentation. In the course of its legislative work, the EC has launched a so-called “Call for Evidence” to gather feedback on how to tackle that issue. The Call for Evidence brings up three topics for discussion:a) The baseline scenario with no policy change. The SPC system would continue to operate on the basis of existing EU and national rules. Member states might continue in an uncoordinated manner to recalibrate their SPC practices, with different approaches persisting across the single market.b) Non-legislative instruments, including guidelines based on the best practices of national patent offices and the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), aimed at further harmonizing the current SPC system.c) Legislative changes, which would possibly be combined with non-legislative changes, including:1) Creation of a centralized system for SPC protection in the EU, with a view to reducing the cost and burden and making the procedure for granting SPCs more predictable. A centralized system would facilitate the setting up of standardized, common, and publicly available digital databases. This centralized system could consist of: (i) a unitary SPC, complementing the future unitary patent; (ii) a unified procedure for granting bundles of national SPCs, without creating a unitary SPC; or (iii) a combination of the two. The detailed features of a centralized SPC system will be assessed in an impact assessment (e.g., an examining and granting authority (a virtual authority comprising SPC experts from Member States, or an EU authority), language arrangements (English-only or multilingual), and judicial review); and2) Targeted amendments of the SPC Regulations on the basis of the best practices of national patent offices and CJEU case law aimed at further harmonizing the current SPC system.The Call for Evidence is open for feedback until April 5, 2022. Any members of the public may provide their feedback and comments. Submissions will be published <a href="https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/13353-Medicinal-&-plant-protection-products-single-procedure-for-the-granting-of-SPCs_en">here</a>.Meanwhile, the UPC committees will continue their preparatory work. A fully operational UPC is expected to open its doors in early 2023, if not in late 2022. From that moment, a seven-year transitional period, during which patent holders may opt out of the exclusive jurisdiction of the UPC, will kick off. It is crucial for holders and applicants of UPs to make well-balanced decisions and keep an eye on the UPC strategies of other market participants.On the one hand, the exclusive jurisdiction of the UPC comes with the advantage of a cost-effective litigation system. To participate in the UPC could be seen as an opportunity to shape this new system. On the other hand, being at the mercy of a newly set up court might be daunting, as outcomes could be perceived as less predictable than in the more familiar systems. This might particularly be the case in light of the fact that a declaration of invalidity would stretch to all participating member states.Therefore, the right strategy can only be tailored in view of the risks or strengths attached to specific patent portfolio and its market environment. Owners and applicants should use the home stretch of the UPC to become familiar with the UPC system and its procedures and get advice on UPC strategy, where needed.

06_30_federalcircuit_blog_sc1.jpg

A Long Courtship for Unity – As Europe’s Unitary Patent System Is Going Live Soon, Consultations About a Unitary Supplementary Protection Certificate Gain Momentum

Healthcare, Biologics, and Severability: Will the ACA—and the BPCIA—Survive the Latest Challenge?

06_30_federalcircuit_blog_sc1

After a myriad of challenges, delays, and hurdles, the setting up of the pan-European patent court, the Unified Patent Court (UPC), is finally gaining traction.

A Long Courtship for Unity – As Europe’s Unitary Patent System Is Going Live Soon, Consultations About a Unitary Supplementary Protection Certificate Gain Momentum

<div><h4>Summary</h4></div><ul><li>The decision of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) in case C-528/16 essentially banning novel genomic techniques (NGTs), in particular novel mutagenesis technologies such as CRISPR-Cas9, left the community in awe.</li><li>A study recently published by the European Commission (“Commission”) now calls for targeted policy action regarding plants derived from targeted cis- and mutagenesis, with an inception impact assessment expected in the third quarter of 2021, as the study revealed that: <ul><li>The current European legislation regarding genetically modified organisms (GMOs) is no longer fit for its purpose with respect to plants derived from targeted cis- and mutagenesis.</li><li>Scientific review did not uncover any new hazards linked to targeted cis- and mutagenesis compared to conventional breeding methods or random mutagenesis.</li><li>In particular, in the agri-food sector, use of NGTs is likely to result in plants more resilient to diseases and climate change effects that have the potential to contribute to a more sustainable agri-food system and thus benefit society.</li><li>Only 21% of EU consumers have ever heard of “gene-editing” but general perception of such technologies is still negative.</li><li>Disparities between public perception and limited public knowledge about NGTs could hamper NGTs market uptake. </li><li>Different regulatory oversight for NGTs in other countries could lead to trade limitations and disruptions, and put EU operators at a competitive disadvantage.</li></ul></li><li>A basic problem identified by the study is the lack of reliable methods to detect such NGT products. To ensure a level playing field for all stakeholders involved, such methods must be able to distinguish between regulated and unregulated products, which is, however, a challenge from a scientific point of view. Alternatively, the study suggests a document-based traceability system, which would, however, involve additional costs and could affect the international competitiveness of EU operators.</li><li>The study suggests that a more flexible approach to assessment of risk of NGTs should be undertaken on a case-by-case basis, rather than the restrictive regulatory framework that is currently in place.</li></ul>With respect to other organisms than plants (microorganisms and animals) and other NGTs than cis- and mutagenesis (e.g., epigenetic editing), however, the study observes substantial knowledge gaps. While the Commission intends to build further knowledge, at this stage other organisms and other NGTs will remain subject to the current GMO legal framework.<a target="_blank" href="https://www.mofo.com/resources/insights/210525-novel-genomic-techniques.html?utm_source=publication&utm_medium=email">Read our alert</a>

mofolifesciences-eu.jpg

The European Commission’s Take on Novel Genomic Techniques (NGTs) in Light of CJEU’s Ruling in Case C-528/16

Fourth Circuit’s Decision Revitalizes First Amendment Challenge to the TCPA

mofolifesciences-eu


Summary


The decision of the Court of      Justice of the European Union (CJEU) in case C-528/16 essentially banning      novel genomic techniques (NGTs), in 

The European Commission’s Take on Novel Genomic Techniques (NGTs) in Light of CJEU’s Ruling in Case C-528/16

In recent years, there have been various antitrust investigations in the pharmaceutical sector resulting in decisions of the European Commission (EC) and the European Courts.[1] In two recent rulings – “Lundbeck”[2] and “Paroxetine”[3] – the European Court of Justice (ECJ) dealt with settlement agreements between originator companies and generic companies aimed at delaying the introduction of generic drugs to the market, so-called “pay-for-delay” or “reverse patent settlement” agreements. In these agreements, the generic companies usually commit to refrain from entering the market for a relevant medicine protected by a (possibly contestable) patent that the originator company holds while the originator company is obliged to pay a certain compensation. The recent ECJ judgments indicate that most of the “pay-for-delay” agreements likely constitute anti-competitive agreements by object and hence violate EU antitrust laws.<h4>Facts/Background</h4>The ECJ provided fundamental guidance regarding questions on “pay-for-delay” agreements in its preliminary ruling in “Paroxetine” on January 30, 2020. In this case, the British Competition Appeal Tribunal (“CAT”) referred various questions to the ECJ for a preliminary ruling. The background for the legal proceedings were settlement agreements with respect to patent disputes between GlaxoSmithKline (the holder of a patent for the paroxetine anti-depressant) and certain generics companies, in which the generics companies agreed to refrain from entering the market with their own generic medicines for a certain period of time and GlaxoSmithKline promised payments in return.In its “Lundbeck” decisions of March 25, 2021, the ECJ applied the principles established in “Paroxetine” to a fine decision of the EC. The ECJ confirmed the previous EC decision including the ruling of the General Court to fine Lundbeck (originator company of the citalopram anti-depressant) and producers of generic medicines for their anti-competitive settlement agreements. After the original compound patent expired in 2002, Lundbeck (still holding a number of secondary patents) and several generic companies entered into “pay-for-delay” agreements. The generic companies committed not to enter the citalopram market and Lundbeck made in return significant payments and also purchased their stocks of generic products. Those agreements led to investigations concluded by the EC’s decision of June 19, 2013[4] to fine Lundbeck and the generic companies. Their appeals before the General Court were dismissed by various judgments of September 8, 2016. Finally, the ECJ dismissed the appeals against the Court’s decisions.<h4>The ECJ Decisions</h4>The ECJ’s decisions mainly focus on the standards of the European cartel ban (Article 101 TFEU) and the rules on abuse of dominance (Article 102 TFEU, see particularly “Paroxetine”) applying to “pay-for-delay” agreements. They particularly provide clarity in which cases generic manufacturers could be considered as potential competitors and in which cases “pay-for-delay” agreements constitute a restriction of competition “by object” (or effect). While the preliminary ruling in “Paroxetine” provides the guidelines to assess “pay-for-delay” agreements in general, the ECJ confirmed and applied those guidelines to a specific fine decision in “Lundbeck.”Potential CompetitorsThe “pay-for-delay” agreements are only anti-competitive if the companies involved are at least “potential competitors.” According to the ECJ in its “Paroxetine” ruling, the relevant potential competition between the originator companies and the generic companies needs to be assessed with “regard to the structure of the market and the economic and legal context within which it operates.” To establish potential competition, the ECJ emphasized that there is no need for certainty that the generic company will in fact enter the market, but the generic companies must have “real and concrete possibilities of entering the market at the relevant time.” More precisely, according to the ECJ, this means that a potential competitor must have taken sufficient preparatory steps to enter the market at the time of the conclusion of the “pay-for-delay” agreement and must show a firm intention as well as an inherent ability to enter the market. Moreover, there shall be no “insurmountable barriers” for entering the market, but the ECJ clarified that the existence of a patent alone cannot be regarded as such an “insurmountable barrier” as long as the potential competitor shows a readiness to challenge the validity of that patent. According to the ECJ, it is not required to assess the “strength of the patent” or how likely it is that a court would find that the patent is valid and has been infringed. Restriction of Competition by ObjectRegarding the question when there is a “restriction of competition by object,” the ECJ pointed out that the agreements must reveal a sufficient degree of harm to competition, considering the agreement’s content, objectives, and economic and legal context. According to the ECJ, such a harm to competition is strongly indicated when the agreed transfers of value cannot have any explanation other than the commercial interest of the parties not to engage in competition on the merits. For this purpose, it is crucial to assess whether the net gain arising from the payments in question is high enough to act as an incentive to the generic companies to refrain from entering the market. However, the net gain is not required to be higher than the profits the generic company would have made if it were successful in the patent proceedings. As with the assessment of a “potential competition,” it is not necessary to assess the strength of the respective patents or of the party’s prospects of success in a patent process, if the transfer of value is significant enough.Abuse of DominanceIn its “Paroxetine” decisions, the ECJ also specified the conditions under which a “pay-for-delay” agreement constitutes an abuse of a dominant market position (Article 102 TFEU). According to the ECJ, the definition of the relevant product market must take the generic versions of the medicine into account, although the generic companies would not be able to legally enter the market. The ECJ further clarified that the exercise of an IP right, including the conclusion of patent settlement agreements, is not per se abusive, but that negative effects for competition arise if this exercise prevents access to the market. Finally, the ECJ pointed out that adverse effects on the market might be counterbalanced by efficiency advantages that also benefit consumers.<h4>Conclusion and Outlook</h4>After the EC and the General Court established the first principles for the assessment of “pay-for-delay” agreements in the pharmaceutical sector under EU antitrust law, the two ECJ rulings provided now more clarity and final guidance on this topic for various issues. This particularly concerns the qualification of the companies involved as “potential competitors,” the relevant test for assessing whether there is a “restriction of competition by object,” and the (non‑)relevance of the likelihood of success in patent proceedings. There are still some open questions, particularly regarding the defense of the companies involved with respect to potential pro-competitive effects or efficiencies. But this could also have been deliberately left open as, in general, the ECJ seems to put “pay-for-delay” agreements under close scrutiny. And while it does not generally prohibit those agreements, they are subject to a critical assessment resulting in “tough (antitrust) times” for any “pay-for-delay” agreements. [1] See prior client alert.[2] Judgments of the ECJ of March 25, 2021 in Cases C-586/16 P, C-588/16 P, C-591/16 P, C-601/16 P, C-611/16 P, and C-614/16 P.[3] Judgment of the ECJ of January 30, 2020 in Case 307/18.[4] EC Decision of June 19, 2013, Case AT.39226 – Lundbeck. in Cases T-460/13, T-467/13,, T-469/13, T-470/13, T-471/13, and T-472/13.

hackl_jens_blog_150x150.png

hackl_jens_common_640x280.jpg

hackl_jens_heroretina_2700x1160.jpg

hackl_jens_mobileretina_750x1040.jpg

hackl_jens_social_600x600.jpg

Jens is a counsel at Morrison Foerster’s German office in Berlin. He advises clients in all areas of European and German competition law, including merger control filings, cartel authority investiga

Jens Hackl

Jens Hackl is a counsel at Morrison Foerster’s German office in Berlin. He advises clients in all areas of European and German competition law, including merger control filings, cartel authority investigations, cartel damage claims, distribution cartel law, antitrust compliance programs and unfair competition law. Jens has particular industry-specific experience in the areas of media, technology, telecommunication, transport and aviation. In addition, he advises in the fields of state aid and public procurement law.

andreas_gruenwald_blog_150x150.png

andreas_gruenwald_common_640x280.jpg

andreas_gruenwald_heroretina_2700x1160.jpg

andreas_gruenwald_mobileretina_750x1040.jpg

andreas_gruenwald_social_600x600.jpg

Managing Partner, Berlin

Andreas is managing partner of Morrison & Foerster’s German office in Berlin and a member of the firm’s worldwide board of directors. He heads the German antitrust and regulatory practice from our Ber

Andreas Grünwald

Andreas Grünwald is a partner in the Global Antitrust Law Practice Group, and head of Morrison & Foerster’s German antitrust practice. He covers a wide range of antitrust and regulatory matters, with a particular focus on the telecommunications, media and technology (TMT) sector. Based in our Berlin and Brussels offices, Mr. Grünwald provides antitrust advice on M&A strategy, represents public and private corporations in merger control proceedings before the German Federal Cartel Office and the European Commission, and he has notable experience in coordinating multi-jurisdictional merger filings involving European, U.S., and Asian authorities. He also advises on other transactional matters such as sector-specific permit requirements as they often arise in regulated industries.