This draft below will soon be integrated with the earlier Schering-Plough "in substance" patent cliff table -- to set forth the "New Merck" in-substance patent cliff picture -- in one plain-English, and convenient summary table. Let me know if any of you see any errors in the work thus far ("Old" Merck, only here):Brand Name 2008 Sales Chemical Name Claim First Filed 30 Month Expiry/
At-Risk DateLikely Competitor Singulair® $4.3B montelukast February 2007 August 22, 2009a Teva Primaxin® $760M imipenem/cilastatin January 2007 September 1, 2009b Ranbaxy Labs Cozaar® $3.5B losartan N/A February 11, 2010c Multiple Emend® $264M aprepitant January 2009 June 2011 Sandoz Nexium® $1.4B esomeprazole October 2005 May 27, 2014d Ranbaxy Fosamax® $1.5B alendronate . Lost exclusivity in 2008 numerous Trusopt/Cosopt® $780M dorzolamide . Lost exclusivity in 2008 numerous Proscar® $320M finasteride . Lost exclusivity in 2006 numerous Zocor® $660M statin family Lost exclusivity in 2006 numerous TOTAL: $13.4 Billion
~~~~~~~~~~
Note a: Trial completed February 2009; awaiting decision; no launch yet, despite window being open since August 22, 2009.
Note b: By agreement, Ranbaxy may launch September 1, 2009.
Note c: First Cozaar patents expire in February and April 2010. Many likely competitors after those dates.
Note d: Despite the in-substance launch window opening in April of 2008, Raxaby and Merck (along with partner AstraZeneca) entered a settlement agreement keeping a generic form of Nexium off the market until May of 2014. The United States Federal Trade Commission (the "FTC") is now formally investigating this settlement agreement -- looking into, among other matters, its potential for improper anticompetitive effects. In that regard, Merck and AstraZeneca each received an investigative document demand from the FTC -- in July 2008 -- regarding the settlement agreement with Ranbaxy. Merck is cooperating with the FTC in responding to the document demand.
More to come, as ever.
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
An Evolving Work-In-Progress -- Of Merck's "In-Substance" Pending-Patent Cliffs
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
and then there's this: http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2009/09/nj_supreme_court_upholds_45m_a.html
N.J. Supreme Court upholds $4.5M award for widow of Vioxx victim
By The Associated Press
September 29, 2009, 1:34PM
TRENTON -- The Supreme Court of New Jersey backed a $4.5 million award to the widow of a man who suffered heart problems after using Merck's painkiller Vioxx.
Yep.
The Vioxx liability may ultimately double in size, from the $4.5 billion now set aside for the class settlement. How so?
Well, as various plaintiffs "opt out" of the global settlement, and choose individual routes through the legal maze -- in each state, the number will undoubtedly grow. By how much?
No one really knows.
That "opt out", though, is a right each plaintiff will retain, at least until he or she finally "opts into" the class settlement.
Thanks -- do stop back!
Namaste
Post a Comment