The European Pharmaceutical Industry in a Global Economy: what drives EU exports of pharmaceuticals?. Bruges European Economic Research Papers (BEER) 31/2015.

The pharmaceutical industry is one of the most competitive sectors in the European Union. With its substantial investments in research and development, this industry represents a key asset for the European economy and a major source of growth and employment. However, despite the importance of the pharmaceutical sector for the European Union, few researchers have attempted to assess the determinants of the EU exports of pharmaceuticals. This paper aims at filling the aforementioned gap by examining what drives EU exports of pharmaceuticals. In order to tackle this question, this paper has derived hypotheses from the Gravity Model of Trade and the relevant academic literature on pharmaceuticals. Based on an econometric analysis, the research sheds light on the complex interaction of factors influencing the EU exports of pharmaceuticals. The paper finds that the protection of intellectual property in the receiving countries, their economic size, the importance of their health sector, and the quality of infrastructures constitute major drivers to the EU exports of pharmaceuticals. On the contrary, the research shows that transports costs as well as tariff barriers and non-tariff barriers tend to hinder the EU exports of pharmaceuticals.

Drug Reformulation Regulatory Gaming in Pharmaceuticals: Enforcement & Innovation Implications

This article examines drug reformulation regulatory gaming as a vehicle for analyzing the way in which European courts and the Commission are currently approaching innovation issues in the pharmaceutical sector. First, the economics literature regarding pharmaceutical innovation is briefly summarized. Next, the phenomenon of regulatory gaming is introduced, followed by an analysis of the two primary theories of harm being used to address drug reformulations as a competition concern. In comparing the recent General Court decision in AstraZeneca to earlier U.S. court cases addressing similar conduct, it is asserted that these approaches differ in significant ways with regards to preservation of innovation incentives as well as on the basis of institutional and evidentiary concerns. Finally, this discussion is then placed into the broader context of the ongoing debate regarding pharmaceutical innovation that first surfaced in the Syfait cases—in particular, the desirability of sector-specific competition law analysis of pharmaceutical innovation.

The Italian Merck Case. Research Papers in Law, 1/2007

From the Introduction. Regulation 1768/921 created supplementary protection certificates (hereinafter, ‘SPCs’) for medicinal products (hereinafter, “pharmaceuticals”) protected by patents. SPCs afford the same exclusive rights as those conferred by patents once these expire and may be granted for a maximum of five years.2 Italy enacted similar legislation in 1991, the most salient difference between both texts being that, pursuant to Law No. 349/91,3 holders of Italian patents for pharmaceuticals could be granted supplementary protection for a maximum period of 18 years after the expiration of the patent. Following the enactment of Regulation 1768/92, SPCs granted by the Italian authorities were brought in line with the period provided for in that text. However, pharmaceuticals for which supplementary protection was sought in the lapse between the adoption of Law No. 349/91 and Regulation 1768/92 (around 400 products) continued to enjoy the protection provided for in the former text.4 Several steps were taken by the Italian authorities to progressively reduce the length of protection granted to these products.

The AstraZeneca Case. Research Papers in Law, 4/2007

Introduction. On June 2005, after a five year investigation, the Commission imposed a 60 millions euros fine on AstraZeneca (hereinafter AZ) for having abused its dominant position in several Member States in the market for proton-pump inhibitors (PPI)2. It was alleged that AZ misused the patent system and procedures for marketing pharmaceuticals to block or delay the entry of generic competitors and parallel traders to its ulcer drug Losec3. This decision is a seminal one. The political and legal importance of the CFI judgment that will review the case (and the ECJ appeal that is likely to follow) cannot be understated. On the one hand the incentive to innovate and to undertake R&D is at stake, on the other, the uncertain boundaries between competition and intellectual property law should once again be explored. In contrast to the US, where many cases concerning the abuse of regulatory and governmental procedures have already been dealt with competition authorities and courts, it is the first time in Europe that such conduct is subject to scrutiny through an anti-trust lens. Moreover, following the appeal brought by AZ against the Commission decision, the CFI will be confronted for the first time with an abuse of a dominant position in the pharmaceutical sector, which explains why this judgment is eagerly anticipated4.

Towards better health outcomes - What role for pharmaceutical innovation? EPC Policy Brief, 10 December 2015

From the current refugee crisis to ageing populations, and from rising healthcare prices to patients’ rising expectations: demands on European health systems continue to increase. Delivering health efficiently and ensuring the long-term sustainability of healthcare in the face of reduced public budgets requires new thinking – and there is a role for pharmaceuticals as well. Building on the series of discussions organised under Transformations, this Policy Brief focuses on the specific role of medicines and pharmaceutical innovation in improving health outcomes. It considers the state of play of drug innovation, from the development to the deployment of medicines, and the measures needed to make it deliver more for society and the economy, while ensuring that patients in Europe can have access to innovative and safe solutions.