Rival's lawsuit could delay launch of new Lilly insulin

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Eli Lilly and Co. may have to wait an extra year or more to launch a once-a-day insulin for diabetics after a rival drugmaker said Lilly’s plans violate the patents it holds on the drug Lantus.

Paris-based Sanofi sued Lilly on Thursday in federal court in Delaware. That suit triggers an automatic 30-month delay on Lilly’s plans to launch a similar version of Lantus—unless Lilly can win in court before that time.

Indianapolis-based Lilly had planned to launch its generic-like version of Lantus—which is known as insulin glargine—next year after Lantus’ patents expire on Feb. 12, 2015.

Sanofi, in a statement, said it decided to sue after a Lilly regulatory filing in December challenged the validity of six of the seven patents Sanofi holds on Lantus.

Lantus currently generates $7 billion a year in sales, making it one of the best-selling drugs in the world. Lilly’s failure to launch a similar drug—even 14 years after Lantus hit the market—has been a financial hindrance and an embarrassment to Lilly, which pioneered the first insulin in the 1920s.

Lilly sells insulins that must be taken multiple times per day, but diabetic patients prefer to limit the number of injections they must take, giving the once-a-day Lantus an edge. Lilly rival Novo Nordisk A/S launched its once-a-day insulin, called Levemir, in 2005.

Lilly filed for market approval of its insulin glargine from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration using a regulatory pathway that allows it to refer to the safety and efficacy studies conducted for Lantus, as well as submitting some of its own clinical trial data of its drug. Lilly’s insulin glargine would be a “biosimilar” version of Lantus.

"Lilly respects the intellectual property of others and does not believe the application for approval of its new insulin glargine product infringes any valid claim of the asserted patents," said Doug Norman, Lilly’s general patent counsel, in a prepared statement.

According to a report by Reuters, a research analyst recently said that a 30-month delay would raise Sanofi's earnings per share from 2015 through 2020 by about 6 percent and lower Lilly's earnings per share for the period by about 2 percent.

A delay in the launch of a cheaper, generic-like version of Lantus would also give Sanofi more time, Reuters noted, to switch patients to a new and yet-to-be-approved long-acting drug known as U300.


Post a comment to this story

We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. Once a Marion Co. commuter tax is established, I'm moving my organization out of Indianapolis. Face it, with the advancement in technology, it's getting more cost effective to have people work out of their homes. The clock is running out on the need for much of the office space in Indianapolis. Establishing a commuter tax will only advance the hands of the clock and the residents of Indianapolis will be left to clean up the mess they created on their own, with much less resources.

  2. The 2013 YE financial indicates the City of Indianapolis has over $2 B in assets and net position of $362.7 M. All of these assets have been created and funded by taxpayers. In 2013 they took in $806 M in revenues. Again, all from tax payers. Think about this, Indianapolis takes in $800 M per year and they do not have enough money? The premise that government needs more money for services is false.

  3. As I understand it, the idea is to offer police to live in high risk areas in exchange for a housing benefit/subsidy of some kind. This fact means there is a choice for the officer(s) to take the offer and receive the benefit. In terms of mandating living in a community, it is entirely reasonable for employers to mandate public safety officials live in their community. Again, the public safety official has a choice, to live in the area or to take another job.

  4. The free market will seek its own level. If Employers cannot hire a retain good employees in Marion Co they will leave and set up shop in adjacent county. Marion Co already suffers from businesses leaving I would think this would encourage more of the same.

  5. We gotta stop this Senior crime. Perhaps long jail terms for these old boozers is in order. There are times these days (more rather than less) when this state makes me sick.