Showing posts with label loses. Show all posts
Showing posts with label loses. Show all posts

Tuesday, July 16, 2013

UPDATE 4-Novartis loses landmark India cancer drug patent case

* Court verdict seen setting precedent in drug patent cases

* Novartis India shares fall before recovering; Natco, Cipla gain

* India intellectual property system "not very encouraging"- exec

* Activists see verdict as win for patients in poor countries

MUMBAI/NEW DELHI, April 1 (Reuters) - India's top court dismissed Swiss drugmaker Novartis AG's attempt to win patent protection for its cancer drug Glivec, a blow to Western pharmaceutical firms targeting India to drive sales and a victory for local makers of cheap generics.

The decision sets a benchmark for intellectual property cases in India, where many patented drugs are unaffordable for most of its 1.2 billion people, and does not bode well for foreign firms engaged in ongoing disputes in India, including Pfizer Inc and Roche Holding AG, analysts said.

It cements the role of local companies as big suppliers of inexpensive generics to India's rapidly growing $13 billion-a-year drugs market and also across the developing world.

Among the chief beneficiaries of Monday's Supreme Court ruling will be India's Cipla Ltd and Natco Pharma Ltd , which already sell generic Glivec in India at around one-tenth of the price of the branded drug.

"The multinational companies will have to find new ways of doing business in India," said Deepak Malik, healthcare analyst at brokerage Emkay Global, suggesting they may consider licensing agreements with local firms to offer cheap versions of branded drugs like Glivec.

Ranjit Shahani, managing director of Novartis India Ltd , the firm's locally listed unit, said it will be cautious about investing in India, especially over introducing new drugs, and seek patent protection before launching any new products. It will continue to refrain from research and development activities there.

"The intellectual property ecosystem in India is not very encouraging," Shahani told reporters in Mumbai after the ruling.

Healthcare activists have called on the government to make medicines cheaper in a country where many patented drugs are too costly for most people, 40 percent of whom earn less than $1.25 a day, and where patented drugs account for under 10 percent of total drug sales.

"This appears to be the best outcome for patients in developing countries as fewer patents will be granted on existing medicines," said Leena Menghaney, Medecins Sans Frontieres' Access Campaign manager for India.

Over 16,000 patients in India use Glivec and the vast majority of those get it free of charge, Novartis says. By contrast, generic Glivec is used by more than 300,000 patients, according to industry reports.

The Supreme Court's decision comes after a legal battle that began when Novartis was denied a patent for Glivec in 2006.

EXTRA WORK

Novartis had argued it was entitled to a patent for the amended version of Glivec because the original patented compound was never suitable for making into a pill. Developing the final chemically stable form took years of extra work and it was this effort that marked the real breakthrough in developing Glivec as a life-saving cancer medicine, the Swiss company said.

Glivec is used to treat certain forms of leukaemia and gastrointestinal cancer, as well as some other rare tumours.

Shares in Novartis' Indian unit ended 1.8 percent lower after falling as much as 6.8 percent after the verdict. Natco Pharma stock ended 5.4 percent higher after earlier gaining nearly 11 percent and Cipla gained 1.3 percent, beating the benchmark index which ticked up 0.15 percent.

India's domestic drugs market is the 14th-largest globally, but with annual growth of 13-14 percent and the world's second-biggest population, international pharmaceutical firms say India has massive potential at a time when traditional developed markets have slowed down.

The ruling may dampen enthusiasm from foreign pharmaceutical firms in the short term, said S. Majumdar, head of law firm S. Majumdar & Co based in the eastern city of Kolkata.

"They will have to get used to it and learn to live with the law," he said.

NOT SO EVERGREEN

Pfizer's cancer drug Sutent and Roche's hepatitis C treatment Pegasys lost their patented status in India last year, decisions the companies are fighting to have reversed. The Supreme Court's latest ruling will make it tougher for them to win back patent protection.

"Henceforth, multinational pharma companies are likely to want that their patents are first recognised in India before launch of a patented product," said Ameet Hariani, managing partner at Mumbai-based law firm Hariani & Co.

India has refused protection for Glivec on the grounds that it is not a new medicine, but an amended version of a known compound. By contrast, the newer form of Glivec has been patented in nearly 40 countries including the United States, Russia and China.

Indian law bans firms from extending patents on their products by making slight changes to a compound, a practice known as "evergreening". The Supreme Court said Glivec does not satisfy a patent's "novelty" requirement, Pravin Anand, lawyer for Novartis, told reporters.

Novartis can file a review petition within 90 days.

Indian Trade Minister Anand Sharma called the ruling "a historic judgment" that reaffirmed legal provisions mandating the need for substantial innovation before new patents are issued on medicines.


View the original article here

Friday, June 21, 2013

UPDATE 1-Medical device maker Cytori loses approval fight

WASHINGTON, March 22 (Reuters) - A U.S. appeals court ruled on Friday that the Food and Drug Administration acted correctly when it denied fast-track approval of two stem cell-related medical devices made by Cytori Therapeutics Inc.

The FDA had reasonable evidence to find that the devices were not substantially equivalent to devices already on the market, according to the unanimous ruling from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

The FDA's decision meant that Cytori had to conduct extensive clinical research as part of premarket approval.

Tom Baker, Cytori's director of investor relations, said the court ruling does not change the status quo because the company has a clinical trial under way.

"That will continue to be our priority and primary path to market," Baker said in a phone interview on Friday.

The clinical trial started last year and the company plans to have initial data in the first half of 2014, he said.

Cytori is hoping to develop a treatment for heart failure in which regenerative stem cells from a patient's own fat tissue would be injected into heart muscle, all in one procedure.

The appeals court ruling relates to two medical devices designed to extract stem cells from fat tissue, the Celution 700 and the StemSource 900.

Cytori and the FDA disagreed over how similar the devices are to existing devices that extract stem cells from blood or bone marrow. Devices that are similar to already approved ones require less testing.

Judge Brett Kavanaugh wrote for a three-judge panel that the appeals court must be careful when questioning the scientific judgment of an agency such as the FDA.

"FDA concluded and explained that fat is not blood and that the difference matters. A court is ill-equipped to second-guess that kind of agency scientific judgment," Kavanaugh wrote.

An FDA spokeswoman declined to comment.


View the original article here

Thursday, June 20, 2013

Medical device maker Cytori Therapeutics loses approval fight

Sorry, I could not read the content fromt this page.

View the original article here

Thursday, February 21, 2013

Former Rep. Tom Tancredo loses bet, will smoke pot

Former Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-Colo.) said Thursday he will uphold his end of a bet and smoke marijuana now that the drug has been legalized by a Colorado voting referendum.

The former congressman and anti-illegal immigration activist had told the maker of a documentary about the ballot initiative that he would smoke pot if the measure passed, despite not being a drug user. On Nov. 6, Colorado voters approved marijuana for recreational use 55 percent to 45 percent.

"Look, I made a bet with the producer of the film that if Amendment 64 passed (I did not think it would) that I would smoke pot," Tancredo said in a statement to Fox News. "I will therefore smoke pot under circumstances we both agree are legal under Colorado law. Hey, it's better than having to do a stupid dance as (Denver) Mayor (Michael) Hancock must perform as a result of losing a bet on the Broncos beating the Ravens."

Despite the bet, Tancredo said he was a supporter of the referendum, believing that government enforcement of anti-marijuana laws was "wasteful and ineffective."

“I am endorsing Amendment 64 not despite my conservative beliefs, but because of them,” he wrote in an op-ed before the vote. “Our nation is spending tens of billions of dollars annually in an attempt to prohibit adults from using a substance objectively less harmful than alcohol.”

Washington state also voted in last year's election to legalize small amounts of marijuana for personal use. On Tuesday, Attorney General Eric Holder met with Washington Gov. Jay Inslee (D) to discuss how the state could move forward with rules regulating the possession and sale of the drug, which remains illegal under federal law.

A poll released by ABC News and The Washington Post shortly after the election in November found a record 48 percent of Americans support legalizing small amounts of marijuana for personal use.

View Comments

View the original article here