Article QQ.E.20: {Biologics}
1. With regard to protecting new biologics, a Party shall
either: (a) with respect to the first marketing approval in a Party of a new pharmaceutical
product that is or contains a biologic62,63, provide effective market
protection through the implementation of Article QQ.E.16.1 and Article
QQ.E.16.3 mutatis mutandis for a period of at least 8 years from the date
of first marketing approval of that product in that Party; or alternatively (b)
with respect to the first marketing approval in a Party of a new pharmaceutical
product that is or contains a biologic, provide effective market protection: Without
Prejudice
(i) through the implementation of Articles QQ.E.16.1 and
QQ.E.16.3 mutatis mutandis for a period of at least 5 years from the
date of first marketing approval of that product in that Party;
(ii) through other measures; and (iii) recognizing that
market circumstances also contribute to effective market protection to deliver
a comparable outcome in the market.
2. For the purposes of this Section, each Party shall apply
this provision to, at a minimum, a product that is, or alternatively, contains,
a protein produced using biotechnology processes64, for use in human beings for
the prevention, treatment, or cure of a disease or condition.
3. Recognizing that international and domestic regulation of
new pharmaceutical products that are or contain a biologic is in a formative
stage and that market circumstances may evolve over time, the Parties shall
consult after 10 years, or as otherwise decided by the TPP Commission, to
review the period of exclusivity provided in paragraph 1 and the scope of
application provided in paragraph 2, with a view to providing effective
incentives for the development of new pharmaceutical products that are or
contain a biologic, as well as with a view to facilitating the timely
availability of follow-on biosimilars, and to ensuring that the scope of
application remains consistent with international developments regarding
approval of additional categories of new pharmaceutical products that are or contain
a biologic.
[Footnote] 62 Nothing requires a Party to extend the
protection of this paragraph to:
(a) any second or subsequent marketing approval of such a
pharmaceutical product; or
(b) a pharmaceutical product that is or contains a previously
approved biologic.
[Footnote] 63 Each Party may provide that an applicant may
request approval of a pharmaceutical product that is a biologic under the
procedures set forth in Article QQ.E.16.1(a)-(b) within 5 years of entry into
force of this Agreement, provided that other pharmaceutical products in the
same class of products have been approved by the Party under the procedures set
forth in Article QQ.E.16.1(a)-(b) before entry into force of this Agreement.
[Footnote] 64 Drafters’ note: The Parties understand that
Article QQ.A.5 applies to the provisions of this Chapter, including the
definition of “biotechnology process” in this paragraph. Accordingly, the
Parties understand that each Party may determine the meaning of biotechnology
processes in its legal system and practice.
The Pharmaceuticals Research and Manufacturing Association (PhRMA)
has already expressed displeasure with the term of data protection for biologics. PhRMA’s
president stated:
“We are
disappointed that the Ministers failed to secure 12 years of data protection
for biologic medicines, which represent the next wave of innovation in our
industry. This term was not a random number, but the result of a long
debate in Congress, which determined that this period of time captured the
appropriate balance that stimulated research but gave access to biosimilars in
a timely manner.”
See more at: http://phrma.org/media-releases/phrma-statement-on-the-transpacific-partnership-negotiations#sthash.hhnHaxO9.dpuf”
For more
information on the Copyright provisions concerning the TPP, see the Electronic Frontier Foundation. The TPP still must be approved by Congress,
and recently Democratic Presidential Candidate Hillary Clinton stated she does
not support the agreement—reversing her earlier opinion and putting her at odds
with the Obama Administration. [Hat Tip
to Professor Irene Calboli at the Texas A&M University School of Law].
No comments:
Post a Comment