Short Reads

Dissemination of misleading information on the safety of a medical product can be a "by object" infringement

Dissemination of misleading information on the safety of a medical pr

Dissemination of misleading information on the safety of a medical product can be a "by object" infringement

01.02.2018 NL law

On 23 January 2018, the European Court of Justice delivered its judgment on a request for a preliminary ruling by the Italian Council of State. The request concerned an agreement between Roche and Novartis to make public statements concerning the alleged lack of safety and efficacy of one of Roche's products which competed with a product licensed to Novartis (the Agreement). The Court of Justice found that such an agreement can, under specific circumstances, constitute a restriction of competition "by object".

Genentech, a subsidiary of Roche, developed bevacizumab (Avastin) and ranibizumab (Lucentis). Avastin was developed to treat certain types of cancer. Lucentis was specifically developed to treat ocular diseases. Genentech licensed Avastin to its parent Roche and, since Roche was not active in the ophthalmological field, it licensed Lucentis to Novartis.

Prior to the market launch of Lucentis in Italy, doctors started prescribing the oncological drug Avastin as a treatment for eye diseases, despite the fact that such use was not included in Avastin's marketing authorisation (off-label use). Given its lower price, the off-label use of Avastin continued well after the market launch of Lucentis.

The Italian Competition Authority (ICA) had found that, following the market launch of Lucentis, Roche and Novartis (the Parties) entered into an agreement with the aim to artificially differentiate between Avastin and Lucentis by exaggerating the risks associated with the off-label use of Avastin while claiming that Lucentis had a better safety profile. According to the ICA, these statements were made without sufficient scientific evidence. The Parties intended to use this Agreement to prevent the further expansion of Aventis in the ophthalmological field and to promote Lucentis instead. According to the ICA, the Agreement intended to unlawfully maximise the profits of the Parties by promoting the most expensive product, namely Lucentis. Consequently, the ICA found that the Parties had entered into a market-sharing agreement, which constitutes a restriction of competition "by object".

The Parties challenged the decision of the ICA before the Italian Council of State, which referred the case for a preliminary ruling to the Court of Justice. The key issue before the Court of Justice was whether an arrangement between competing undertakings to disseminate unconfirmed scientific information on the off-label use of one of their products, with the aim or reducing the competitive pressure exerted on the other product, could constitute a restriction of competition "by object".

The Court first established that medicines that have a marketing authorisation (MA) for a specific indication and medicines used off-label for the same indication can, under circumstances, actually compete in same relevant market.

Next, the Court found, siding with the Advocate General's opinion, that the Agreement could indeed be considered a "by object" restriction of competition. First, the Court emphasized that the responsibility to report any potential adverse effects to the authorities and consequently to professionals and the general public lies with the MA holder alone and not with another company marketing a competing product under a separate MA. In this case, it was not only the MA holder, i.e. Roche, that had been involved in the relevant communications but also Novartis. According to the Court, this provides an indication that the communications may not have been solely driven by objectives related to pharmacovigilance. 

Secondly, the Court found that if the information shared by the Parties was misleading, then the Agreement should be considered a "by object" infringement. The Court held that such information should be considered as misleading if– in short – it was shared with the purpose of confusing the relevant authorities on the safety profile of Avastin so they would include in its summary of characteristics the alleged adverse reactions, which would then allow Roche to launch a communication campaign in which the safety risks could be exaggerated vis-à-vis doctors and the general public. The Court left this assessment to the Italian Court.

This case is important as it effectively marks the introduction of the doctrine of disparagement in EU competition law. Similar cases (see Sanofi-Aventis decision) have been pursued in France where the competition authority found – and courts have confirmed – that the dissemination of misleading information about a pharmaceutical product's characteristics can infringe competition rules.

This article was published in the Competition Law Newsletter of January 2018. Other articles in this newsletter:

  1. Qualifying dawn raid documents as 'in scope' or 'out of scope': marginal review by Belgian Court
  2. Highest German Court rules that ASICS's ban on using price comparison websites violates EU competition law

Team

Related news

11.09.2019 EU law
Legal trend: climate change litigation

Articles - Climate change cases can occur in many shapes and forms. One well-known example is the Urgenda case in which the The Hague Court condemned the Dutch government in 2015 for not taking adequate measures to combat the consequences of climate change. Three years later, the Court of Justice of The Hague  upheld this decision, and it is now pending before the Dutch Supreme Court. This case is expected to set a precedent for Belgium, i.a. Since both the Belgian climate case and the Urgenda case are in their final stages of proceedings, this blog provides you with an update on climate change litigation.

Read more

05.09.2019 NL law
No fine means no reason to appeal? Think again!

Short Reads - Whistleblowers who have had their fine reduced to zero may still have an interest in challenging an antitrust decision. The Dutch Authority for Consumers and Markets (ACM) held two de facto managers personally liable for a cartel infringement but, instead of imposing a EUR 170,000 fine, granted one of them immunity from fines in return for blowing the whistle. The Trade and Industry Appeals Tribunal found that, despite this fortuitous outcome, the whistleblower still had an interest in appealing the ACM's decision.

Read more

05.09.2019 NL law
ECJ answers preliminary questions on jurisdiction in cartel damage case 

Short Reads - On 29 July 2019, the ECJ handed down a preliminary ruling concerning jurisdiction in follow-on damages proceedings in what is termed the trucks cartel. The court clarified that Article 7(2) Brussels I Regulation should be interpreted in such a way as to allow an indirect purchaser to sue an alleged infringer of Article 101 TFEU before the courts of the place where the market prices were distorted and where the indirect purchaser claims to have suffered damage. In practice, this often means that indirect purchasers will be able to sue for damages in their home jurisdictions.

Read more

05.09.2019 NL law
Wanted: fast solutions for fast-growing platforms

Short Reads - Dominant digital companies be warned: calls for additional tools to deal with powerful platforms in online markets are increasing. Even though the need for speed is a given in these fast-moving markets, the question of which tool is best-suited for the job remains. Different countries are focusing on different areas; the Dutch ACM wants to pre-emptively strike down potential anti-competitive conduct with ex ante measures, while the UK CMA aims for greater regulation of digital markets and a quick fix through interim orders.

Read more

14.08.2019 BE law
Verklaring van openbaar nut is geen "project" in de zin van de MER-regelgeving

Articles - In een recent arrest bevestigt de Raad van State dat "verklaringen van openbaar nut", bedoeld in artikel 10 van de wet van 12 april 1965 betreffende het vervoer van gasachtige produkten en andere door middel van leidingen niet onder het begrip "project" uit de project-MER-regelgeving valt. Of hetzelfde geldt voor elk type gelijkaardige administratieve toelating, is daarmee evenwel nog niet gezegd. Niettemin geeft de Raad met zijn arrest een belangrijk signaal dat niet elke mogelijke toelating onder de project-MER-regelgeving valt.

Read more

Our website uses functional cookies for the functioning of the website and analytic cookies that enable us to generate aggregated visitor data. We also use other cookies, such as third party tracking cookies - please indicate whether you agree to the use of these other cookies:

Privacy – en cookieverklaring