POSTED BY:
Jennifer Lucas
ON:
22 Feb 2008On the world stage New Zealand is not a huge player in the pharmaceutical industry, our population of 4 million comprising less than 1% of the world pharmaceutical market.
From a regulatory point of view, New Zealand benefits the
generic pharmaceutical manufacturers (generic pharma companies) by
only having a five year period of data exclusivity on all new
chemical entities authorised in the country, and no data
exclusivity period on new formulations or indications. Data
exclusivity provides the innovator company with a period of
protection over the data supplied by them to gain regulatory
approval in a country. Once this period of data exclusivity ends,
the generic manufacturer may then use this data to prove the safety
of their own bioequivalent drug, without the expense of conducting
their own clinical trials. New Zealand's five year exclusivity
period is in contrast to the longer exclusivity given in the EU and
countries such as Japan and the United States, where the term can
be up to ten years from first approval of a drug.
Also in favour of the generic pharma companies is section 68B of
the New Zealand Patents Act. Section 68B is a regulatory review
exception (otherwise known as "springboarding" or a "Bolar"
provision), which states;
"It is not an infringement of a patent for a person to make,
use, exercise or vend the invention concerned solely for uses
reasonably related to the development and submission of information
required under New Zealand law or the law of any other country that
regulates the manufacture, construction, use, or sale of any
product."
Since the introduction of section 68B, generic companies have
been able to safely prepare their equivalent products and gain
regulatory approval in New Zealand from MedSafe (New Zealand's
Medicines and Medical Devices Safety Authority), prior to the
expiry of patents covering the innovator drug. This allows them to
hit the ground running when the patent comes off protection - a
favourable outcome for both the consumer and the company's bottom
line.
When comparing the New Zealand springboarding provision to those
of other countries in Asia, the scope is fairly broad. There is no
limitation on the product on which testing will be undertaken as
there is in, for example Japan or Malaysia, where the provisions
are restricted to the use of a chemical compound or medicine and
the use of a pharmaceutical patent respectively. The broad scope of
the provision in New Zealand opens the door for testing of any
product that requires regulation, including veterinarian products,
chemicals, foodstuffs and agricultural products to name a few.
Secondly, the wording of section 68B allows for use of the
invention when working towards gaining regulatory approval in any
country, not just New Zealand. For countries such as China,
Indonesia and the Philippines, where there are currently no
springboarding provisions in place, New Zealand is a potential
location for companies looking to prepare their product for launch
on expiry of the relevant patents in their own countries.
Gaining expert intellectual property advice is invaluable for
both generic pharma companies and other companies working with
products that have associated patent protection. Whether companies
are based in New Zealand, or just looking to take advantage of New
Zealand's current regulatory legislation in preparation for entry
into a foreign market, having a good knowledge of the local
environment will keep them a step ahead of the competition.
By Jennifer de Vere, Intellectual Property Specialist, James
& Wells Intellectual Property