Posted on 12/17/2005 4:21:28 PM PST by oblomov
NEW YORK - Pfizer Inc. won a crucial court ruling Friday that will allow it to exclusively sell the top-selling drug worldwide, the cholesterol-lowering drug Lipitor, until 2011. Shares of Pfizer, the world's largest drug company, soared more than 11 percent on the news.
ADVERTISEMENT
District Judge Joseph J. Farnan Jr. ruled in Delaware federal court that Indian pharmaceutical company Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd.'s generic version of Lipitor infringes on two Pfizer patents. He said the New Delhi-based company failed to prove Pfizer's patents were invalid or unenforceable.
The ruling heads off the chance that Ranbaxy will be able to launch a cheaper version of Lipitor before Pfizer's patents expire in 2010 and 2011.
Lipitor was introduced in the United States in 1997 and its sales totaled $10.9 billion last year in the United States and more than 70 other countries.
More than 18 million Americans have been prescribed the drug as a means of reducing elevated levels of cholesterol in the blood that can lead to heart attacks, strokes and other cardiovascular ailments.
The ruling is "a victory for innovation" and good for patients, said Jeffery B. Kindler, vice chairman and general counsel of New York-based Pfizer. The company said it spent more than $800 million on clinical trials alone for Lipitor involving more than 80,000 patients. It needs the benefit of patent-protected sales of its medicines to fund the research needed to find other new and promising drugs, Kindler said.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
In other news, paper company stocks went through the roof as lawyers nationwide prepared for the future class action lawsuits against Pfizer. Not because the drug is bad....it's just what they do.
Isn't if Pfizer that started the eminant domain thing with a win against a private property owner?
NO
It was the city of New London you're thinking of.
How does a U.S. court control what an Indian company does outside the U.S.? I can see how it could impose sanctions that affect the company's business in the U.S., but how can it directly affect sales in other countries?
And already well known. If it happens you stop taking it and it goes away. Worth the risk for many of us heart attack types.
Great defense for the Pfizer lawyers. Patients won't be certain if they took the pill, or not.
If Pfizer has operations in India, they may take the aid of Indian courts to enforce this ruling.
Pfizer has operations in India.
Yes, here it is:
http://www.pfizerindia.com/
http://www.financialexpress.com/fe_full_story.php?content_id=111869
Ranbaxy loses to Pfizer in US court too
Can’t launch generic version of Atorvastatin until 2011
CORPORATE BUREAU & BLOOMBERG
Posted online: Sunday, December 18, 2005 at 0311 hours IST
NEW DELHI , DELAWARE, DEC 17: The US district court of Delaware on Friday dealt a major blow to Ranbaxy Laboratories by ruling that its generic version of the world's largest selling drug $10.9 billion Lipitor (Atorvastatin calcium) infringes patents held by innovator Pfizer Inc.
Though Ranbaxy has begun the process of appeal, the decision by Judge Joseph J. Farnan has marred chances of launching its generic challenger in the world's largest pharma market until 2011, when the patent expires.
“We were prepared for this ruling and will go to the Federal Circuit Court in appeal. Our strategy and cost planning factored in this ruling,” said Ranbaxy president (pharmaceuticals) Malvinder Mohan Singh. In October, Ranbaxy lost a similar challenge in the UK for Atorvastatin though the UK Court ruled that its Atorvastatin Calcium did not infringe Pfizer's patent. However, it will not be able to launch the generic product in there unless it wins the appeal on the original patent on Atorvastatin.
The victory is a shot in the arm for Pfizer for which Lipitor's global revenues accounted for about 20% of its $52.5 billion revenues in 2004.
In his 65-page opinion, Judge Farnan said Pfizer proved “by a preponderance of the evidence,” that Ranbaxy's formula infringes the patents both by composition and the method used to inhibit cholesterol. The judge also said Ranbaxy had not proven, as it claimed, that one of the patents was invalid because Pfizer allegedly withheld information from the US Patent and Trademark Office.
Ranbaxy had claimed that Pfizer gave the USPTO misleading information to ensure that its application for the compound patent would be approved and said the second patent doesn't cover a new invention. Judge Farnan rejected that argument, saying, “The fact that Ranbaxy has chosen to copy Lipitor” shows “the success and efficacy” of the drug compared with other products.
Experts are beginning to notice a shift in US Court judgements in favour of the innovator companies of late. In a bid to reduce cost of medicines, a host of crucial judgements in the past have been in favour of challenger companies but this is the second time this year a US court has rebuffed efforts by a generic-drug company challenging a patent on the main compound—the other case being Eli Lilly's Zyprexa. Mr Singh, however, said this should not be interpreted as a shift towards innovators.
Pfizer is part of the water front development in New London.
The U.S. court does not control what the Indian company does outside the U.S. This is bad news for the Indian company because the U.S. market is so big.
Yes, they have offices there. But this discussion is about the eminent domain issues of which they had no part. This issue lies at the feet of the city of New London and a psuedo-private corporation established by the city named "New London Development Corporation"
Let's not assign guilt by association (or physical address)
I didn't.
The answer remains, "No"
Pfizer's $270 million research facility was built on the waterfront in the neighborhood in question. Several years later NL Council adopted a redevelopment plan using Eminent domain power for adjacent property in that neighborhood.
Pfizer does have an interest in the New London Development Corporations plan. It does benifit their investment. However, they have no known direct link to it as far as I know.
The research facility is NEAR but not IN the neighborhood in question. Other than that, I agree with your last posting. There's an indirect effect, but not a direct relationship to the properties where eminent domain was used. Eminent domain was NOT used for the particular property where these facilities sit and it is not inside the same neighborhood, but nearby.
Way to go Todd!
Yet another example (as if one was needed) that our side is the smart one.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.