Impact of upcoming regulatory changes on patent disputes in Australia

Home/Policies & Legislation | Posted 22/05/2020 post-comment0 Post your comment

Following a series of proposed transparency reforms from the Australian Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA), a recent commentary explains what the changes will mean for pharmaceutical patent disputes.


The TGA first announced plans to publish drugs under evaluation in February 2019 [1]. This would change the current mode of operation, by which the TGA only notifies the public about new medicines following their registration.

The Administration has since given approval to implement enhanced transparency measures and in April 2020 published a paper to gather opinion on various implementation options [2].

The TGA proposed a notification scheme whereby the generic/biosimilar applicant would notify the innovator about the application after preliminary assessment (but before evaluation of the medicine).

It has offered two different options for implementation: notification only if the relevant patent has not expired, and notification in all circumstances. The TGA is open to feedback on these different options until 9 June 2020, which would be implemented in early 2021.

A recent post by independent law firm Corrs Chambers Westgarth explains the impact these regulatory changes might have on pharmaceutical patent disputes in the country.

The post outlines several important implications, summarized here:

  • Earlier notification of generic and biosimilar medicine applications will encourage innovator companies to engage with generics manufacturers before listing on the Australian Register of Therapeutic Goods (to obtain information to determine whether the drug infringes on their patents, for example). If the generic manufacturer does not provide this information, the innovator will have more time to obtain information using a court application for preliminary discovery.
  • It is questionable whether the changes will avoid legal injunctions (which can be used by the innovator to prevent generic launch until a patent dispute is heard). Generics manufacturers may not have completed their commercial plans and so may not be willing to start patent revocation proceedings at such an early stage.
  • Generics manufacturers who are not ready to begin revocation proceedings are likely to offer innovators an undertaking to notify patentees before they seek listing under the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS)/launch.
  • Innovators may accept these undertakings and use the time available to obtain information on the generic product, so that they are ready to begin patent infringement proceedings later on.
  • The additional time may also provide greater opportunity for patent disputes to be resolved before litigation.
  • It is unclear whether the new process will apply to only new applications, or existing ones too. If the former is true, there may be a rush by generics manufacturers to file applications before the process comes into force.

Related articles
Australia approves five biosimilars since June 2019

Australia plans reform of its generics authorization process

Australia’s TGA will keep same names for biologicals

1. GaBI Online - Generics and Biosimilars Initiative. Australia’s TGA considering whether to publish drugs under evaluation []. Mol, Belgium: Pro Pharma Communications International; [cited 2020 May 22]. Available from:
2. GaBI Online - Generics and Biosimilars Initiative. Australia’s regulatory body proposes transparency reforms []. Mol, Belgium: Pro Pharma Communications International; [cited 2020 May 22]. Available from:

Permission granted to reproduce for personal and non-commercial use only. All other reproduction, copy or reprinting of all or part of any ‘Content’ found on this website is strictly prohibited without the prior consent of the publisher. Contact the publisher to obtain permission before redistributing. 

Copyright – Unless otherwise stated all contents of this website are © 2020 Pro Pharma Communications International. All Rights Reserved.

Source: Corrs, Chambers Westgarth, TGA

comment icon Comments (0)
Post your comment
Related content
PDUFA VI: FDA could promote generics competition
47 MD001813
Home/Policies & Legislation Posted 29/07/2022
House bill passes FDA funding fees but conflicts with Senate bill
User Fee V13H23
Home/Policies & Legislation Posted 15/07/2022
US Senate clarifies status of interchangeable biosimilar exclusivity
Interchangeability V18K30
Home/Policies & Legislation Posted 27/05/2022
Nomenclature of biologicals and biosimilars in Peru
02 AA010638
Home/Policies & Legislation Posted 20/05/2022
Most viewed articles
About GaBI
Home/About GaBI Posted 06/08/2009
EU guidelines for biosimilars
EMA logo 1 V13C15
Home/Guidelines Posted 08/10/2010