Court issues restraining order against Lilly

 IBJ Staff and Associated Press
May 26, 2011
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Amylin Pharmaceuticals Inc. said Thursday that a federal court has issued an injunction preventing drug development partner Eli Lilly and Co. from using the same sales force to sell an Amylin-developed diabetes treatment and a competitor's.

Amylin says the temporary restraining order prevents Lilly from continuing with a plan to sell both Byetta and Boehringer Ingelheim's linagliptin. Amylin and Indianapolis-based Lilly entered an agreement in 2002 to develop and sell Byetta, a type 2 diabetes treatment.

San Diego-based Amylin filed a lawsuit against Lilly earlier this month, accusing the drugmaker of breaking their commercialization deal for diabetes drugs by teaming with Boehringer Ingelheim to develop and sell a competing product.

Lilly entered a development agreement with Germany's Boehringer Ingelheim in January. Earlier this month, regulators approved linagliptin, which also treats type 2 diabetes. Amylin then filed the lawsuit against Lilly over that arrangement.

Lilly says it is disappointed in the court's decision but will take the necessary steps to comply with the order.

"We believe that Amylin's allegations against Lilly are entirely without merit and we fully expect to prevail in this litigation," Lilly senior vice president and general counsel Robert A. Armitage said in a statement.

Company spokesman Mark Taylor declined to comment beyond the statement, which was issued late Wednesday night.

The injunction also prevents Lilly from disclosing any confidential information about Byetta, known generically as exenatide, to sales representatives selling linagliptin, which goes by the brand name Tradjenta.

Type 2 is the most common form of diabetes. People with the disease have trouble breaking down carbohydrates because their bodies have become resistant to the protein insulin. They are at higher risk for heart attacks, kidney problems, blindness and other serious complications.

Lilly said in January it would pay Boehringer about $387 million as part of a joint bid to develop and sell up to five drugs. The companies will split revenue from any approved drugs, not counting costs for making and selling the product. Each drugmaker also will receive payments based on whether their products reach certain milestones, like submissions for approval.

Amylin and Lilly also are seeking regulatory approval for a longer-lasting version of Byetta called Bydureon. Amylin has said it plans to continue working with Lilly, but that company's deal with Boehringer amounts to anticompetitive behavior.

Lilly has said patients and doctors need choices to fight diabetes, and its strategy for the chronic disease involves offering a broad range of options. It also said injectables like Byetta generally compete with other injectables, not tablets like Tradjenta.


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. Can your dog sign a marriage license or personally state that he wishes to join you in a legal union? If not then no, you cannot marry him. When you teach him to read, write, and speak a discernible language, then maybe you'll have a reasonable argument. Thanks for playing!

  2. Look no further than Mike Rowe, the former host of dirty jobs, who was also a classically trained singer.

  3. Current law states income taxes are paid to the county of residence not county of income source. The most likely scenario would be some alteration of the income tax distribution formula so money earned in Marion co. would go to Marion Co by residents of other counties would partially be distributed to Marion co. as opposed to now where the entirety is held by the resident's county.

  4. This is more same-old, same-old from a new generation of non-progressive 'progressives and fear mongers. One only needs to look at the economic havoc being experienced in California to understand the effect of drought on economies and people's lives. The same mindset in California turned a blind eye to the growth of population and water needs in California, defeating proposal after proposal to build reservoirs, improve water storage and delivery infrastructure...and the price now being paid for putting the demands of a raucous minority ahead of the needs of many. Some people never, never learn..

  5. I wonder if I can marry him too? Considering we are both males, wouldn't that be a same sex marriage as well? If they don't honor it, I'll scream discrimination just like all these people have....