DRUG DEVELOPMENT DECONSTRUCTOR MANIFESTO: : “Tell me how you read and I'll tell you who you are.” ― Martin Heidegger
Monday, August 20, 2012
Sunday, August 19, 2012
Big Pharma and patent cliff: how to make a “win-win” situation
The patent cliff (for some fresh numbers see also here) is one of the dangers that threaten Big Pharma, however Big Pharma is very creatively prepared to handle this problem.
When a patent expires, the original holder and the first generic manufacturer to file with the US government both get an exclusive six-month right to sell an unbranded alternative. So branded drug makers figured they could settle patent suits simply by giving up that right - with no actual payment changing hands. A generic challenger would receive a lucrative six-month monopoly when the patent expired, while the original holder would avoid what it considered an early end to patent protection.
Pfizer essentially took that approach in settling with Teva Pharmaceutical Industries over the rights to the antidepressant Effexor XR. According to a lawsuit brought by drug retailers, Teva delayed its generic version for two years in exchange for Pfizer's promise not to compete once Teva did start production. The drug's annual US sales topped $2.5 billion over those years, the suit claims.
The companies deny wrongdoing and say the deal was just a licensing agreement. But the Federal Trade Commission argued this week that Pfizer made an unlawful payment.
Patent protection allows big drug companies to recoup the enormous costs of bringing compounds to market. But they shouldn't be allowed to chisel the public for more years than they deserve of outsized profits. The judge hearing the case can protect consumers' wallets by saying so.
Well, very smart, no comments. Big Pharma is out there to make profits, preferably in a monopoly way, not to provide inexpensive and efficient medicinal treatment.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)