Comments on: Pfizer, A Branded Generic & A Patent Fight

By: Caverta

Caverta — Fri, 25 Feb 2011 12:31:12 +0000

Pfizer’s patent is the reason why many generic pharmacy came with generic brand.

@Mark
You mean to say Pfizer’s Viagra is cheap?. Refer me the pharmacy please.

By: foln16

foln16 — Thu, 15 Oct 2009 16:23:27 +0000

Dr. Dave: yes, no outcomes are guaranteed, but in the case of pharma R/D while success in R/D itself is not guaranteed, when R/D is successful the benefits of such success are guaranteed (i.e. periods of exclusivity). In this instance, however, you’re saying that not only is success in challenging patents not guaranteed, but when litigation is successful the benefits shouldn’t be guaranteed either. You may believe that, in which case we just disagree, but surely you’ll agree that these are different.

In long term, if generic firms lose the incentive to challenge patents, patients lose — not just the firms, but patients too. (I must sound like a spokesperson for the generics industry — I’m not).

By: atlex

atlex — Thu, 15 Oct 2009 11:38:05 +0000

Dr. Dave, you are exactly right. Moreover, nothing about the 6 months of exclusivity would keep the brand manufacturer from bringing out its own generic to compete against the “exclusive” generic.

By: Dr. Dave

Dr. Dave — Wed, 14 Oct 2009 23:49:57 +0000

foln16,

The reason why the generics companies are complaining is because their business is being taken away.

Your comments about challenging patents being costly is true, but just like pharma R&D, there is no guaranteed outcome.

Merck did this same thing with Zocor and completely pulled the rug out from under Teva (I believe). They basically negotiated with an insurance company to provide a cheaper generic.

So I ask again, the only winner here is the patient. Either the pharma company launches their own generic (and provides a lower cost than the generic firms can) or they don’t and the generic firms produce a cheap generic firm. Either way, the patient gets the benefit.

By: foln16

foln16 — Wed, 14 Oct 2009 20:08:07 +0000

Nice to have Pharmalot back… I disagree with Mark and Dr. Dave and am inclined to agree with the complaint by the representative of the generics sector. The “problem” is that we know that the reason why Pfizer lowered price is because it lost the court case, there’s no dispute there — but if Pfizer then gets the contract to supply it removes generic firms’ incentives to engage in expensive litigation and challenge the patent in future cases. It really has nothing at all to do with whether or not the firm that won the tender is Pfizer, a Pfizer spin-off, or Joe’s generic company. The point is that challenging patents is costly and if the benefits of a successful challenge are not appropriated by the one bearing the costs of the challenge, then no rational firm will challenge patents. And then the consumers lose. Perhaps I’m missing something but this is precisely the logic that motivates and informs the 6months of market exclusivity that Hatch-Waxman provides successful generic litigants.

By: Dr. Dave

Dr. Dave — Wed, 14 Oct 2009 14:04:08 +0000

This makes me laugh! For a long time the generics firms (who produce ZERO new drugs) have been able to cut themselves off a piece of the pie by sending their lawyers after the R&D Pharma company’s products.
So now, instead of letting the generics firms produce their drugs for cheap, the Pharma companies are PRODUCING THEIR DRUGS FOR LESS.
I agree with Mark, the consumer wins either way, so what’s the problem?

By: Mark

Mark — Wed, 14 Oct 2009 13:59:22 +0000

I don’t see what the problem is. The province is trying to get the lowest costs drugs to the patient. Pfizer was able to provide the lowest cost drugs, so what’s the problem?

By: scoutant@ec.rr.com

scoutant@ec.rr.com — Tue, 13 Oct 2009 16:28:22 +0000

Is there nothing they won’t do?