IBJNews

Lilly suing J&J for patent rights in Alzheimer's drug race

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Eli Lilly and Co. is seeking to revoke a patent held by a Johnson & Johnson unit, arguing at a London court it might delay availability of a potential treatment for Alzheimer’s disease.

Both companies have drugs in development that use antibodies to target the build-up of plaque in patients’ brains. Lilly argues its treatment, solanezumab, doesn’t infringe a patent held by J&J’s Janssen Alzheimer Immunotherapy Research & Development LLC, according to court documents.

“An effective treatment for Alzheimer’s Disease (AD) has been elusive, despite massive efforts to find one,” Indianapolis-based Lilly said in the documents. The trial, which started Wednesday, “could dictate whether Lilly’s treatment for AD is available to patients in the [United Kingdom] before the expiry of the patent in November 2018, or possibly longer.”

Drug companies are vying to find the first working treatment for a condition that is expected to affect 65 million people worldwide by 2030, causing loss of memory, mood changes, dementia and brain damage. There have been 101 clinical trial failures since 1998, according to the Pharmaceutical Research & Manufacturers of America.

“The patent is valid and the claimant is not entitled to a declaration of non-infringement,” Janssen said in court documents from the trial.

Lilly’s UK media relations team didn’t immediately respond to a phone call seeking comment. Greg Panico, a U.S. spokesman for Janssen, declined to immediately comment.

Janssen’s drug, bapineuzumab, cost more than $500 million to research and ended up “a costly failure,” Lilly lawyer Andrew Waugh told the court Wednesday, citing clinical trial results.

Lilly is proceeding with its treatment, he said. “One of the reasons it hasn’t failed is because it works by a different mechanism to that which is described in the patent.”

Derica Rice, Lilly’s chief financial officer, said in an April earnings call the company would hold another pivotal trial for solanezumab this year.

While solanezumab failed to meet the main goal of two large studies, an analysis of the data from that research found it did slow progression in people with milder stages of Alzheimer’s. The new study, looking only at those patients, will start by the third quarter of 2013, Lilly said in December.

Sanofi CEO Chris Viehbacher said earlier this month the French drugmaker won’t pursue an Alzheimer’s treatment because the science isn’t advanced enough to justify the cost.

The first Alzheimer’s drugs, if successful, would lead to a market worth $20 billion, Barbara Ryan, a former Deutsche Bank analyst estimated last year.

ADVERTISEMENT

  • Competitive drug companies
    Memo-Johnson and Johnson (Risperdal) and,Eli Lilly (Zyprexa) were competitive atypical antipsychotics that got both companies sued for hundreds of millions in damage claims.--Daniel Haszard Zyprexa victim.

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. PJ - Mall operators like Simon, and most developers/ land owners, establish individual legal entities for each property to avoid having a problem location sink the ship, or simply structure the note to exclude anything but the property acting as collateral. Usually both. The big banks that lend are big boys that know the risks and aren't mad at Simon for forking over the deed and walking away.

  2. Do any of the East side residence think that Macy, JC Penny's and the other national tenants would have letft the mall if they were making money?? I have read several post about how Simon neglected the property but it sounds like the Eastsiders stopped shopping at the mall even when it was full with all of the national retailers that you want to come back to the mall. I used to work at the Dick's at Washington Square and I know for a fact it's the worst performing Dick's in the Indianapolis market. You better start shopping there before it closes also.

  3. How can any company that has the cash and other assets be allowed to simply foreclose and not pay the debt? Simon, pay the debt and sell the property yourself. Don't just stiff the bank with the loan and require them to find a buyer.

  4. If you only knew....

  5. The proposal is structured in such a way that a private company (who has competitors in the marketplace) has struck a deal to get "financing" through utility ratepayers via IPL. Competitors to BlueIndy are at disadvantage now. The story isn't "how green can we be" but how creative "financing" through captive ratepayers benefits a company whose proposal should sink or float in the competitive marketplace without customer funding. If it was a great idea there would be financing available. IBJ needs to be doing a story on the utility ratemaking piece of this (which is pretty complicated) but instead it suggests that folks are whining about paying for being green.

ADVERTISEMENT