IBJNews

Lilly: Vendors key after Zyprexa patent loss

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Today’s the day. At the start of business this morning, Eli Lilly and Co. no longer had U.S. patent protection on its best-selling drug, Zyprexa, a loss that threatens to open a gaping hole in the finances of the locally based drugmaker.

The Indianapolis area and even the state of Indiana hope Lilly’s challenges don’t create similar holes in Hoosiers’ incomes.

That’s because Lilly’s 11,500 employees in Indiana receive average compensation of $151,000 per year—more than double the state average. And their earnings help stoke numerous service businesses, from retailers to restaurants to real estate agents and wealth advisers.

On top of that, Lilly contracts with 1,300 vendors in Indiana, spending nearly $1.1 billion every year for their goods and services. Those range from high-end scientific and manufacturing work, to legal and accounting help, to janitorial and food services.

The majority of that money is spent in Indianapolis and its nearby counties, according to a breakdown on Lilly’s website. But Lilly has at least one vendor in 59 of Indiana’s 92 counties.

“Our footprint is pretty far and wide in the state of Indiana,” said Mike O’Connor, Lilly’s director of state government affairs.

In Marion County, Lilly spent $639 million with 675 vendors last year. In Hamilton County, the drugmaker shelled out $71 million to 187 vendors. And in Hancock County, where Lilly has its animal-health subsidiary headquartered and also contracts with laboratories operated by New Jersey-based Covance Inc., it spent $70 million with 47 vendors.

Some of this spending used to be done entirely under Lilly’s umbrella. But Lilly agreed to sell its Hancock County labs in 2008 to Covance, and transferred 280 employees to the new owner.

Similarly in 2009, Lilly agreed to sell its Tippecanoe County manufacturing plant to Germany-based Evonik Industries AG. Now Tippecanoe County receives the second-largest amount of Lilly’s largesse, totaling $195 million to 115 vendors last year.

Trying to overcome the loss of revenue from the $5 billion-a-year antipsychotic Zyprexa, which also lost its European patent in the past month, requires Lilly to rely on its vendors more than ever, O’Connor said.

Lilly also faces the loss of revenue from its No. 2-selling drug, the antidepressant Cymbalta, in 2013. Cymbalta is on pace this year for $4 billion in sales.

“The business climate is going to require us to develop more partnerships,” O’Connor said, adding, “Our vendor network has to be included in our business strategy, more so than it’s ever been.”

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. By Mr. Lee's own admission, he basically ran pro-bono ads on the billboard. Paying advertisers didn't want ads on a controversial, ugly billboard that turned off customers. At least one of Mr. Lee's free advertisers dropped out early because they found that Mr. Lee's advertising was having negative impact. So Mr. Lee is disingenous to say the city now owes him for lost revenue. Mr. Lee quickly realized his monstrosity had a dim future and is trying to get the city to bail him out. And that's why the billboard came down so quickly.

  2. Merchants Square is back. The small strip center to the south of 116th is 100% leased, McAlister’s is doing well in the outlot building. The former O’Charleys is leased but is going through permitting with the State and the town of Carmel. Mac Grill is closing all of their Indy locations (not just Merchants) and this will allow for a new restaurant concept to backfill both of their locations. As for the north side of 116th a new dinner movie theater and brewery is under construction to fill most of the vacancy left by Hobby Lobby and Old Navy.

  3. Yes it does have an ethics commission which enforce the law which prohibits 12 specific items. google it

  4. Thanks for reading and replying. If you want to see the differentiation for research, speaking and consulting, check out the spreadsheet I linked to at the bottom of the post; it is broken out exactly that way. I can only include so much detail in a blog post before it becomes something other than a blog post.

  5. 1. There is no allegation of corruption, Marty, to imply otherwise if false. 2. Is the "State Rule" a law? I suspect not. 3. Is Mr. Woodruff obligated via an employment agreement (contractual obligation) to not work with the engineering firm? 4. In many states a right to earn a living will trump non-competes and other contractual obligations, does Mr. Woodruff's personal right to earn a living trump any contractual obligations that might or might not be out there. 5. Lawyers in state government routinely go work for law firms they were formally working with in their regulatory actions. You can see a steady stream to firms like B&D from state government. It would be interesting for IBJ to do a review of current lawyers and find out how their past decisions affected the law firms clients. Since there is a buffer between regulated company and the regulator working for a law firm technically is not in violation of ethics but you have to wonder if decisions were made in favor of certain firms and quid pro quo jobs resulted. Start with the DOI in this review. Very interesting.

ADVERTISEMENT