168. L'unique declaration reprise d

168. L'unique declaration reprise dans la Decision emanant d'un employe de Sanofi-Aventis France est done pour le moins moderee. Or les services d'instruction ont pourtant procede a l'audition de pas


75 Decision, pt. 434.
76 Decision, pt. 440.
77 Decision, pt. 102.
78 Voir ci-dessous le Ill sur la violation du standard de preuve, pis. 219 a 221.
79 Decision, pt. 129.




mains de huit visiteurs medicaux et deh gues pharmaceutiques de Sanofi-Aventis France au cours de l'instruction80• Ces derniers n'ont pas ete choisis au hasard : cinq d'entre eux ont ete nommement designes par les services d'instruction, vraisemblablement parce que leur nom avait
ete donne par des professionnels de sante ou par Teva. Les trois autres ont ete selectionnes en fonction des medecins ou pharmaciens auxguels ils ont rendu visite81 , ou du territoire geographigue dent il avait la charge.

169. Les visiteurs medicaux et delegues pharmaceutiques de Sanofi-Aventis France ont fait les declarations suivantes aux services d'instruction :

« If y avait des questions sur le fait que des g{meriques n'avaient pas toutes les indications. La bioequivalence, c'etait plut6t acquis. »82

« On leur expliquait que cettains brevets etaient tombes sur cettaines indications mais que
l'indication sur le syndrome coronaire aigu etait toujours protegee par brevet. » 83

« Oui, les pharmaciens se posaient parfois des questions sur cette difference de sel.
- Rappotteur de I'ADLC : Dans ce cas, que leur repondiez-vous ?
Qu'en France tout produit qui est mis sur le marche a prouve sa bioequivalence. »84

cc Je parlais suttout de l'autogenerique, je ne parlais pas patticulierement du sel. Je descendais les avantages du Clopidogrel. C'est tout. J'insistais suttout sur le fait que c'etait un autogenerique. Aujourd'hui les pharmaciens aiment beaucoup les autogeneriques. »85

Résultats (Anglais) 1:

168. the only statement included in the decision emanating from an employee of sanofi-aventis France is therefore at least moderate. instruction or services have yet proceeded to hearing no decision


75, pt. 434. 76
decision, pt. 440. 77
decision, pt. 102 78.
See below the figure on the violation of the standard of proof, worse. 219 to 221.
79 decision, pt. 129.




hands of eight medical visitors and deh gues pharmaceutical Sanofi-aventis France during instruction80 • these have not been chosen at random: five of them were named by the services of education, presumably because that their names had been given
by health professionals or by Teva.the other three were selected according to doctors or pharmacists auxguels they made visite81 or territory geographigue tooth he was responsible.
169. medical visitors and delegates pharmaceutical Sanofi-aventis France made the following statements to educational services

"If there were any questions on the fact that g {MERICAS did not have all the information. the bioequivalence, plut6t it was acquired. "82

" we explained to them that cettains patents were graves on cettaines indications
but the indication of acute coronary syndrome was still protected by patent. "83

" yes,pharmacists sometimes asked questions about this difference of salt
- rappotteur of i'adlc:., in this case, their answer you
in France any product that is put on the market has proven its bioequivalence?. "84 cc

I spoke suttout the autogenerique, I did not speak patticulierement salt. I walked down the benefits of clopidogrel. that's all.suttout I insisted on the fact that it was a autogenerique. Today pharmacists are fond autogeneriques. "85

<< pharmacists when asked the question [on differences indications], we told them that the bioequivalence was present and that it had no rappott with the effectiveness of the product. "86
170. these remarks,who feels alone can directly attest to the content of the information communicated by sanofi-aventis France, clearly demonstrate the absence of deceptive character thereof.

Résultats (Anglais) 2:

168. The single statement in Decision emanating from an employee of Sanofi - Aventis France is done at least moderate. Or instruction services have yet method has the hearing not


75 Decision, pt. 434.
76 Decision, pt. 440
77 Decision, pt. 102
78 See below the Ill on the violation of the standard of proof, worse. 219a 221.
79 Decision, pt. 129.



hands of eight visitors, medical and pharmaceutical Sanofi-Aventis France during the instruction80• deh colleagues these last were not chosen at random: five of them have been specifically designated by instruction services, presumably because their names had
summer gives professionals of health or by Teva. The other three have been selected according to the doctors or pharmacists auxguels they made visite81, or of the territory geographigue tooth he had charge.

169. Visitors medical and pharmaceutical Sanofi-Aventis France delegates made the following statements to instruction services:

"If there were questions about the fact that g {meriques did not all indications.}. Bioequivalence, it was obtained instead. ' 82

"We explained to them that some patents were graves on cettaines indications but that
the indication on the syndrome acute coronary was always protected by patent.. ' 83

Yes, pharmacists sometimes raised questions about this difference of salt.
-Rappotteur de I'ADLC: in this case, that their repondiez you?
in France any product which is placed on the market has proven its bioequivalence. ' 84

cc I was talking the autogenerique albeit, I was not talking about patticulierement of salt. I walked down the benefits of Clopidogrel. Thats all. I insisted albeit the fact that it was an autogenerique. Today pharmacists much like the autogeneriques. ' 85

< When pharmacists raised the question [about the differences of indications], we say to them that bioequivalence was present and that this did not rappott with the effectiveness of the product. ' 86

170. These words, who feels the only that can directly attest to the content of the information communicated by Sanofi-Aventis France, well show the absence of deceptive nature of it.
.

Résultats (Anglais) 3:

168. The single statement resumption in the Decision from an employee of Sanofi-Aventis France is done for the less moderate. However, the services of instruction have yet proceeded at the hearing of not

75 Decision, pt. 434.
76 Decision, pt. 440.
77 Decision, pt. 102.
78 See below the Ill on the violation of the standard of proof, even worse. 219 A 221.
79 Decision, pt. 129.




Hands of eight medical visitors and deh fords pharmaceutical Sanofi-Aventis of France during the statement80• These latter have not been chosen at random: five of them have been specifically designated by the services of instruction, presumably because their name had
been given by health care professionals or by Teva.The other three were selected on the basis of doctors or pharmacists auxguels they visited81 , or territory geographigue tooth he had the load.

169. The medical visitors and delegates of pharmaceutical Sanofi-Aventis France made the following statements to services education:

"If y had questions about the fact that the g{like digital cameras had not all indications. Bioequivalence, it was plut6t acquired. " 82

" they explained that cettains patents were tombs on cettaines indications but that
the indication on the acute coronary syndrome was always protected by patent. " 83

" Yes,Pharmacists are sometimes posed questions on this difference of salt.
- Rappotteur of I'when compressed using ADLC: In this case, that their answer-you ?
that in France any product which is put on the market has proven its bioequivalence. " 84

cc I was talking about suttout of the autogenerique, i was not talking about patticulierement of salt. I clambered down the benefits of clopidogrel. That is all.I suttout insisted on the fact that it was a autogenerique. Today pharmacists love much the autogeneriques. " 85

<< when pharmacists posed the question (on the differences of indications], we were telling them that the bioequivalence was introduced and that this had not of rappott with the effectiveness of the product. " 86

170. These remarks,Who feels the only ones that can directly attest to the content of the information communicated by Sanofi-Aventis France, demonstrate the absence of misleading nature of the latter.