IBJNews

Court defeat lost in Lilly's gloomy long-term outlook

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Eli Lilly and Co.’s loss of a patent on one of its blockbuster drugs in court late last month received a collective yawn from investors.

A U.S. appeals court ruled July 28 that Lilly’s cancer drug Gemzar received a second patent it shouldn’t have—a patent Lilly was counting on to ward off generic competitors of the drug for another three years.

Now, cheaper generic versions of the cancer medicine will hit the U.S. market when Gemzar’s first U.S. patent expires in November. That will wipe away most of Gemzar’s $750 million in annual U.S. revenue off Lilly’s books. Gemzar is approved to treat ovarian, breast, pancreatic and non-small-cell lung cancers.

But since the decision, Lilly’s stock price has actually risen slightly. It closed Friday at $36.98.

That's because most Wall Street analysts were already assuming Lilly would lose in court, in spite of confident predictions by company executives.

Lilly was trying to defend its discovery that Gemzar is effective against cancer, which is called a method-of-use patent. Such patents are much harder to defend than Lilly’s first patent on Gemzar, which protects Lilly’s discovery of the molecule itself, known as composition of matter.

“Every sell-side analyst looks at composition-of-matter patents as being those that never fall in a court and any other patent, including use or manufacturing, as being not sacrosanct,” said Barclays Capital analyst Tony Butler.

But the larger reason for the lack of investor reaction is that Lilly’s short-term successes and setbacks make little change in its long-term outlook. The company will lose patent protection on so many monster drugs in the next few years that a little good news or bad news doesn’t change the picture much.

“They lose a little bit more financial flexibility,” Miller Tabak & Co. analyst Les Funtleyder said of the Gemzar patent loss. “But they’re already less flexible.”

Funtleyder, who advises hedge funds on health care stocks and is now managing his own health care mutual fund, said he’s waiting for Lilly to do something significant enough to make a dent in the revenue it will lose from patent expirations over the next five years.

“Even without Gemzar, we know and they know the next couple of years are going to be difficult,” he said.

Beginning with the loss of U.S. and European patents on Zyprexa, Lilly’s $5 billion-a-year antipsychotic, the company stands to lose patent protection on five best-selling drugs by 2014.

Those events could zap $10 billion a year in sales, or nearly half its current revenue of $21.8 billion a year.

“It’s not that it’s irrelevant,” Butler said of the Gemzar patent loss. “It’s just one of many. It doesn’t improve or deteriorate any view of the company.”

Indeed, many analysts were assuming a 2011 drop-off in Gemzar revenue due to a court loss, which will allow Israel-based Teva Pharmaceuticals Inc. to launch the first generic Gemzar on Nov. 15.

For example, Goldman Sachs Group analyst Jami Rubin predicted Gemzar’s nearly $1.4 billion in global sales would dwindle to a paltry $385 million next year. The drug has already lost patent protection in some foreign countries. Deutsche Bank Securities analyst Barbara Ryan also assumed Gemzar would tail off next year.

But others, such as Dr. Tim Anderson at Bernstein Research and Bert Hazlett at BMO Capital Markets, assumed Gemzar would keep generating more than $1 billion in worldwide sales for three more years.

Lilly executives had assumed a court victory and had built that expectation into their 2010 profit forecasts. In the wake of the decision against Lilly by a panel of judges at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, Lilly executives said they would explore any remaining legal options they have.

"We strongly disagree with the ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals regarding Gemzar's method-of-use patent. We continue to believe that our Gemzar method-of-use patent should be found valid and should remain in effect until mid-2013," said Bob Armitage, Lilly’s general counsel, in a statement.

Meanwhile, Lilly CEO John Lechleiter kept up his sunny view that, eventually, Lilly’s pipeline of new drugs will deliver new revenue to offset its old ones losing patent protection.

"Despite today's ruling, our business remains strong, supported by the growth of key marketed products and a promising pipeline of potential new medicines that currently boasts nearly 70 molecules in clinical development,” Lechleiter said in a statement. “We remain confident in our ability to deliver on our innovation-based strategy."

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
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
ADVERTISEMENT

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
 
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. If I were a developer I would be looking at the Fountain Square and Fletcher Place neighborhoods instead of Broad Ripple. I would avoid the dysfunctional BRVA with all of their headaches. It's like deciding between a Blackberry or an iPhone 5s smartphone. BR is greatly in need of updates. It has become stale and outdated. Whereas Fountain Square, Fletcher Place and Mass Ave have become the "new" Broad Ripples. Every time I see people on the strip in BR on the weekend I want to ask them, "How is it you are not familiar with Fountain Square or Mass Ave? You have choices and you choose BR?" Long vacant storefronts like the old Scholar's Inn Bake House and ZA, both on prominent corners, hurt the village's image. Many business on the strip could use updated facades. Cigarette butt covered sidewalks and graffiti covered walls don't help either. The whole strip just looks like it needs to be power washed. I know there is more to the BRV than the 700-1100 blocks of Broad Ripple Ave, but that is what people see when they think of BR. It will always be a nice place live, but is quickly becoming a not-so-nice place to visit.

  2. I sure hope so and would gladly join a law suit against them. They flat out rob people and their little punk scam artist telephone losers actually enjoy it. I would love to run into one of them some day!!

  3. Biggest scam ever!! Took 307 out of my bank ac count. Never received a single call! They prey on new small business and flat out rob them! Do not sign up with these thieves. I filed a complaint with the ftc. I suggest doing the same ic they robbed you too.

  4. Woohoo! We're #200!!! Absolutely disgusting. Bring on the congestion. Indianapolis NEEDS it.

  5. So Westfield invested about $30M in developing Grand Park and attendance to date is good enough that local hotel can't meet the demand. Carmel invested $180M in the Palladium - which generates zero hotel demand for its casino acts. Which Mayor made the better decision?

ADVERTISEMENT