The EU Pharma Package has instigated a landmark shift from market-access discretion to increasingly mandated market participation, with new launch and supply obligations raising fundamental questions around legal definitions, liability exposure and antitrust risk for life science companies. As these legislative changes unfold against a global backdrop of U.S. MFN pricing and mounting commercial pressure, legal teams must navigate a complex, evolving intersection between regulatory obligations, market access strategy and wider commercial dynamics.

This session will examine the implications of new EU launch and supply mandates, exploring how these legislative obligations are reshaping decision-making by marketing authorisation (MA) holders regarding launch sequencing and market participation amid global pricing pressures.


-How could enforcement of new launch obligations under the EU Pharma Package interact with European IP strategy and the revised “8+1(+1)(+1) regulatory exclusivity framework”?

- How might Member States interpret and enforce requirements around “adequate” or “sufficient” medicine supply under the new framework?

- What circumstances might constitute an acceptable “exceptional circumstance” justifying delayed launch or non-launch?

- What safeguards will be available to companies seeking to challenge or prevent misuse of launch and supply mandates by national authorities?

- How will new obligations interact with global pricing dynamics, including U.S. MFN policies, to influence where, when and in what geographical order companies choose to launch new products?

- How will new launch and supply obligations interact with competition law frameworks?

Divisional filing strategies have become a crucial and often contentious issue at the intersection between life science IP and antitrust law. As patent offices face growing pressure to alter their stance on divisional practice and competitors increasingly scrutinise filing strategies, companies must navigate a complex, high stakes environment where portfolio decisions can significantly impact market exclusivity timelines, public perception and revenues from blockbuster products.

This session will define the legal boundaries between anti-competitive evergreening and strategic portfolio optimisation, discuss how divisional filing strategies should be aligned with regulatory exclusivity and SPC frameworks, and explore the most effective approaches for generics companies seeking to challenge access blocking divisional patent families.

Where does the legitimate boundary lie between portfolio optimisation and anti-competitive “evergreening”?
- How should originator companies design divisional strategies in parallel with regulatory exclusivity and SPC frameworks?
- How should generics companies coordinate IP invalidity, regulatory and competition strategies when confronting large divisional families?
- How does the UPC shift the litigation and competition risk profile of divisional portfolios?
- Are we entering a more interventionist phase in EU scrutiny of patent strategy – what signals should companies be monitoring in this space?

Competition law is no longer a standalone legal discipline within the life science sector. As antitrust scrutiny expands across patent practices, litigation settlements, pricing and deal-making, competition risk has become an increasingly important strategic issue, with significant potential implications for how you and your company approach future IP, regulatory and corporate decision-making.

This holistic, industry-led keynote will bring together private practitioners, regulators and in-house counsel to examine the evolving landscape of life science antitrust and discuss how recent developments in this area are reshaping legal strategy across the sector.

- How are interactions between competition authorities, patent offices and healthcare agencies reshaping the legal operating landscape for life science companies?
- How are industry perspectives on M&As, settlements and other life science transactions evolving?
- How are regulators scrutinising IP and regulatory frameworks in abuse of dominance investigations?
- What global trends are emerging in dawn raids, antitrust litigation and financial enforcement mechanisms targeting anti-competitive conduct in the life sciences sector?
- How should legal teams integrate competition risk into broader IP, regulatory and corporate strategy?

Competition law is an industry hot topic and a central strategic risk for life science companies. This exclusive opening keynote interview will provide you with direct insight into the current perspectives and enforcement priorities of the European Commission and national competition authorities, setting the scene for a broad follow-up discussion examining antitrust across the life science sector.

Now firmly established as a key pillar of the European patent litigation framework, the UPC is forcing the life science industry to reassess how EPO prosecution strategy translates into downstream litigation exposure. Despite the growing body of UPC case law, significant uncertainty remains as to the extent to which the two forums will align in their treatment of core patentability standards.

This session will examine where the two central European patent forums converge and diverge in their treatment of key aspects of patentability, focusing initially on the UPC’s emerging approach to inventive step and how it compares with established EPO practice. The discussion will then address the ongoing debate surrounding description amendments at the EPO, exploring how the pending G1/25 and G1/24 referrals might shape your patent drafting strategy, prosecution approach and litigation planning in Europe.

- How does the EPO’s problem–solution approach to inventive step compare with the more flexible, multi factor assessment emerging in UPC case law?
- Following G2/21, how is the EPO approaching plausibility and the admissibility of post-filed data, and how are these issues likely to be treated in UPC litigation?
- To what extent are the EPO and UPC converging in their treatment of added subject matter, novelty and sufficiency of disclosure?
- How might debates around description amendments at the EPO, including the pending Enlarged Board referrals G1/24 and G1/25, influence claim interpretation and litigation strategy before the UPC?

This exclusive roundtable brings together senior legal leaders from across the sector to exchange practical insights and examine shared leadership challenges. Guided by an experienced facilitator, participants will collaborate on effective strategies to navigate the unique challenges of life science legal leadership.

This discussion will examine the deployment of AI-driven legal tools across IP, regulatory, competition and transactional workflows within life science organisations. The session will explore the strengths and current limitations of machine learning approaches within legal workflows, outline the latest developments in legal task-specific AI software and address how legal teams across practices can move from pilot AI initiatives towards implemented frameworks that boost efficiency and enhance output.