IBJNews

Lilly, Amylin agree to end diabetes partnership

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrint

Amylin Pharmaceuticals Inc. and Eli Lilly and Co. have agreed to end a decade-long diabetes partnership to resolve litigation between the two drugmakers, the compananies announced Tuesday morning.

Amylin will assume global responsibility for developing the injectable drug Byetta, the companies said in a prepared statement. Amylin, based in San Diego, will make an upfront payment of $250 million to Indianapolis-based Lilly and future revenue-sharing payments of $1.2 billion plus interest.

The drug brought in $559 million for Amylin last year, almost 85 percent of the company’s revenue, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. It accounted for $151 million in sales for Lilly last year. Amylin said it sees the agreement adding to cash flow by the end of 2013

The relationship between the two companies turned sour earlier this year after Lilly teamed with the German company Boehringer Ingelheim to develop diabetes treatments. Amylin sued Lilly over that deal and accused the larger drug company of breaking a commercialization agreement for diabetes drugs.

On behalf of people living with diabetes, the companies determined it was in the best interest of all constituents to amicably terminate the collaboration,” the companies said in the statement.

Shares of Amylin sank more than 15 percent, or $1.70, to $9.23 in midday trading, while Lilly shares climbed 36 cents to $38.71.

The collaboration meant more to San Diego-based Amylin, which only has two products on the market, than it did to the much larger Lilly, said Les Funtleyder, health care portfolio manager for Miller Tabak, which owns Lilly shares.

He noted that the resolution will give Lilly a capital infusion, and he said the company's relationship with Boehringer has more potential to help Lilly, which is facing a loss of revenue from several patent expirations.

Byetta stimulates the pancreas cells to produce insulin when blood sugar is high. It has been approved for patients taking other diabetes medicines and on its own as a therapy with diet and exercise. A long-acting version of the drug sold by the companies is called Bydureon.

Amylin sued Lilly in May, saying the manner in which Lilly plans to implement an agreement to develop and sell Boehringer Ingelheim’s type 2 diabetes drug breached its agreement to develop and commercialize Amylin’s competing drugs.

In June, a federal judge in San Diego denied Amylin’s request for a preliminary order that would have imposed restrictions on Lilly’s diabetes sales force.

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. These higher rates Co. e about only because physicians are now hospital employees. otherwise physicians couldn't charge these rates and share the windfall with the hospital. Community/rural hospitals probably not buying physicians practices and thus weren't getting the windfall anyway.

  2. The incentive for poor people to get themselves off public assistance and "no longer be poor" is even with help...they're STILL POOR! Being poor, even with some assistance, isn't all that pleasant. (I speak from experience) It's a stubborn myth that poor people, who are on public assistance, are sitting in the lap of luxury. You should try living on just those "freebies" that you mentioned and see how meager they actually are. By the way, I didn't mean you had to buy/own a puppy...just pet one. :)

  3. As near as I can tell the minority has ZERO constitutional obligation to offer a quorum to the majority. A requirement for quorum was inserted into the constitution so that tyrannical majorities could not simply shove through odious and objectionable legislation (which is exactly what they did.) By allowing a tyrannical majority to charge fines against the minority for exercising their constitutional prerogative to deny quorum the court as made a mockery of constitutional governance in the state of Indiana.

  4. The voters elected the Reps to make a vote not walk out on the vote. They had to the right to exercise their opinion and vote "no" to the bill. Let me ask you this if you walked out of your job for 5 straight weeks would you get paid? Would you even have a job to go back to? If any elected official walks out on the people they should be arrested for stealing tax dollars from the public. They were elected to do a job and not leave when the job gets stuff.

  5. I have been to several of their locations in Pennsylvania and always go in for 1 item and leave with a basket full of things. I'm very happy they decided on Indiana, now if only they would put the other store in eastside.

ADVERTISEMENT