OpenLobby.EU
Explore

European Centre for International Political Economy

ECIPE

ECIPE work is dedicated to global trade and digital policy, and other international economic policy issues of importance to Europe.

Lobbying Activity

Meeting with Christian Ehler (Member of the European Parliament, Rapporteur) and WWF European Policy Programme and Rolls-Royce

13 Jan 2026 · European Competitiveness Fund

Meeting with Richard Szostak (Director Secretariat-General)

4 Sept 2025 · Exchanges on the follow-up of the Summit of 19 May 2025 between the European Union and the United Kingdom

Meeting with Alexandra Geese (Member of the European Parliament)

4 Jun 2025 · Event: Euractiv Tech Policy Conference - Building the backbone of Europe's digital economy

Meeting with Sabine Weyand (Director-General Trade) and

28 May 2025 · EPC Trade Policy Forum- Reviving Multilateralism: Europe’s Role in Rebuilding Global Trade Governance

Meeting with Sabine Weyand (Director-General Trade)

14 May 2024 · Future of EU trade policy, and how trade policy can contribute to better market access and economic resilience in the future.

Meeting with Alejandro Cainzos (Cabinet of Executive Vice-President Margrethe Vestager)

9 Jun 2021 · ORAN Alliance

Response to Pharmaceutical Strategy - Timely patient access to affordable medicines

6 Jul 2020

ECIPE welcomes the EU’s new pharmaceutical strategy and supports initiatives to ensure innovative, safe and affordable medicines for citizens in the EU and globally. We share the European Commission’s view that innovative technologies such as artificial intelligence (AI) modern approaches to data analysis are changing the way medicines and new therapeutic approaches are developed. At the same time, we caution that EU Member States need to remain attractive to world-class researchers and agile life sciences companies to retain a high degree of industrial and technology sovereignty in the future. Strong EU commitment to intellectual property rights protection is therefore needed. Strong protection of intellectual property rights is generally needed for commercial investments and the creation of high value-added, high wages and future-oriented investments in education and professional qualifications (skilled labour). The strong protection of patents is a key determinant of European companies’ current leading positions in global biopharmaceutical research and innovation. This is recognised by the Commission’s new Industrial Policy Strategy, which highlights that “[t]he EU also needs to ensure that its Intellectual Property policy helps to uphold and strengthen Europe’s tech sovereignty and promote a global level playing field. IP helps to determine the market value and competitiveness of Europe’s firms.” The Commission also acknowledges that it is companies’ “intangibles, such as brands, designs, patents, data, know-how, and algorithms”, which impact on their business activities and commercial value respectively. Under the Juncker Commission, the EU implemented new regulation that is undermining EU Member States’ attractiveness as an investment hub for life sciences companies. Following a review of supplementary protection certificates (SPCs), the EU started to allow the manufacturing of previously SPC-protected ingredients and corresponding medicinal products for the purpose of export to third countries outside the EU, and for the purpose of stockpiling for day-one entry to the EU market immediately after SPC expiry. The generics industry’s push for such a waiver has been backed by a promise to create thousands of well-paid jobs in the EU, for which evidence remains absent. While a diversity of supply for essential goods is no doubt desirable, bolstering low value-added sectors like generic manufacturing does not make much economic sense given the cost advantages of foreign manufacturers, e.g. companies based in China and India. In the Commission’s recent White Paper on data, it is argued that “data should be available to all”. However, data sharing obligations undermine the EU’s commitment to protect intellectual property and trade secrets and would have the opposite effect to what is actually intended. Full data availability would become a severe deterrent to future investment in life sciences companies in the EU. Both EU and non-EU companies’ incentives to invest in any biopharmaceutical research in the EU would vanish if they knew that they would have to share data with competitors and everybody else. As other jurisdictions are to maintain or strengthen intellectual property rights frameworks – especially the US, Japan, Switzerland and increasingly China –, the EU should not seek to further erode intellectual property rights and provide a high level of protection for biopharmaceutical and other knowledge-intensive companies. Any further erosion of commercial exclusivity rights in the EU would companies to reconsider whether they want to maintain research and manufacturing capacities in EU Member States. Looser enforcement of intellectual property rights in the EU would stifle innovation in the EU and undermine the EU’s long-term industrial and technology sovereignty, with adverse implications for European citizens’ access to innovative and affordable medicines, particularly in the medium- and long-term future.
Read full response