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

02.04.2020 NL law
ACM played high stakes and lost: no more fixed network access regulation

Short Reads - The ACM’s failure to meet the requisite standard of proof has led to the fixed networks of Dutch telecom providers KPN and VodafoneZiggo being free from access regulation. The Dutch Trade and Industry Appeals Tribunal ruled that the ACM had failed to demonstrate the existence of collective dominance, and that KPN and VodafoneZiggo would tacitly coordinate their behaviour absent regulation.

Read more

26.03.2020 BE law
​I am suffering significant financial losses as a result of the spread of the corona virus. Is there a possibility of State aid?

Short Reads - COVID-19 brings certain questions to centre stage regarding State aid. In this short read, Peter Wytinck, Sophie Van Besien and Michèle de Clerck discuss the possibility of State aid in case of significant financial losses as a result of the spread of the corona virus.

Read more

02.04.2020 NL law
Claims assigned to a litigation vehicle: who needs to prove what?

Short Reads - Two recent decisions from the Amsterdam Court of Appeal have confirmed that litigation vehicles cannot come empty-handed to the court, and should provide documentation regarding the assignments of claims they submit. The Dutch legal system allows companies and individuals to assign their claims to a “litigation vehicle” or “claims vehicle” that bundles those claims into a single action. In its decisions of 10 March 2020, the Court of Appeal ruled that it is up to litigation vehicles to prove that the assignments can be invoked against the debtor. 

Read more

10.03.2020 NL law
De AVG staat niet in de weg aan de verwerking van persoonsgegevens door een toezichthouder tijdens een bedrijfsbezoek

Short Reads - Bedrijven die met toezicht worden geconfronteerd, zijn gehouden op verzoek van een toezichthouder in beginsel alle informatie te verstrekken. Met de komst van de Algemene verordening gegevensbescherming (AVG) is in de praktijk de vraag opgekomen of een toezichthouder bevoegd is om persoonsgegevens die onderdeel uitmaken van de gevraagde informatie te verwerken.

Read more

02.04.2020 NL law
EU competition policy agenda: full to the brim

Short Reads - The European Commission’s competition policy agenda stretches to 2024 and contains plans for many new or revised rules and guidelines. Recent publications, such as the New Industrial Strategy for Europe, shed more light on the Commission’s initiatives and their possible impact on parties from both inside and outside the European Union (EU). These new initiatives include temporary state aid rules to address the effects of the Corona crisis, consultations on the Block Exemption Regulations, and new measures in respect of (primarily) third-country companies.

Read more

05.03.2020 NL law
CBb confirms: no cartel fine, still interest to appeal cartel decision

Short Reads - Companies can challenge a decision establishing that they committed a competition law violation, even if no fine was imposed on them. The CBb – the highest court for public enforcement of cartel cases – recently confirmed that the absence of a fine does not affect a company’s interest to appeal. Consequently, parent companies held liable for a subsidiary’s cartel infringement can still challenge a cartel decision, irrespective of whether fines were imposed on them separately.

Read more

This website uses cookies. Some of these cookies are essential for the technical functioning of our website and you cannot disable these cookies if you want to read our website. We also use functional cookies to ensure the website functions properly and analytical cookies to personalise content and to analyse our traffic. You can either accept or refuse these functional and analytical cookies.

Privacy – en cookieverklaring