The Federal Court, in a decision released on July 17, 2009, has upheld Canada's Food and Drug Regulations as they relate to the protection of data that is submitted by innovators for the purpose of obtaining regulatory approval (the Data Protection Regulations).
Currently, the Data Protection Regulations, implemented on October 5, 2006, provide a period of 8 years of protection from the date of an innovator's first Notice of Compliance for an "innovative drug", and the possibility of a further 6 month period if studies are conducted in the pediatric population. During the period of protection, no competing manufacturer can compare its product to the innovative product in order to obtain approval. Effectively, this protects the underlying clinical trial and other data submitted by innovators from being relied upon by competitors seeking their own approvals. The system was implemented to bring Canada into compliance with its obligations to protect this information, as required by the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and the World Trade Organization's Agreement on Trade-related Aspects of Intellectual Property (TRIPS).
The Canadian Generic Pharmaceutical Association (CGPA) and Apotex Inc., in separate court applications, challenged the new system as being ultra vires the authority of Parliament and unconstitutional. Canada's Research-based Pharmaceutical Companies (Rx&D) (represented by Gowlings' Martin Mason and Graham Ragan) was granted intervener status in the CGPA proceeding, while Eli Lilly Canada Inc. (represented by Gowlings' Rick Dearden and Wendy Wagner) was granted intervener status in the Apotex application. The two applications were heard together on December 16 through 18, 2008.
The Attorney General had objected early on in the proceedings to the standing of either applicant, the CGPA or Apotex. Justice Mandamin revisited this issue in respect of the CGPA at the hearing of the matter and determined that the CGPA had public interest standing.
In upholding the Data Protection Regulations, the Court determined that the constitutional authority for the Regulations was not the criminal law power, but rather, that the implementation of the Regulations fell under the federal trade and commerce authority.
In commenting on the nature of the Regulations, the Court stated:
The Court further stated:
The Court also found that the Data Protection Regulations are not beyond the regulatory power of the Governor in Council in that the Regulations are "properly concerned with data protection for innovator drug companies which are required to provide confidential commercially valuable data to secure a NOC to introduce new drugs to the Canadian market" and that this is consistent with the requirement in the NAFTA and TRIPS provisions.
For a copy of the decision, please see:
http://www.gowlings.com/resources/enewsletters/pharmacapsules/pdfs/T-1976-06
and T-2047-06.pdf
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.