IBJNews

Lilly's win in Evista patent case crucial, analyst says

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrint

A decision by a federal judge in Indianapolis to turn back a patent challenge to Eli Lilly and Co.’s Evista marks a major victory for the company, says an analyst who closely follows the pharmaceutical industry.

In Wednesday’s decision, U.S. District Court Judge Sarah Evans Barker ruled that Lilly’s method-of-use patents for Evista are valid through 2014, rejecting all the claims of Israel-based generic drug firm Teva Pharmaceuticals Industries Ltd.

Evista, an osteoporosis drug, generated global sales of $1 billion last year, including $700 million in the United States, and is considered a blockbuster drug.
 
“Lilly’s taken a couple of hits lately, so it would have been bad [to lose the case],” said Les Funtleyder, a health care stock analyst at New York-based Miller Tabak & Co.

Earlier this month, the company said it plans eliminate 5,500 jobs by the end of 2011 as it tries to cut $1 billion in expenses before it loses the revenue from its bestselling drug, Zyprexa.

Indianapolis-based Lilly faces the patent expiration of Zyprexa in November 2011, after which it will lose most of the drug’s $4.7 billion in annual sales to cheaper generic versions. In addition, patents will expire by 2014 on four other major Lilly drugs, including Evista.

Challenges to Lilly’s patents aren’t unusual, but disputes brought by Teva warrant serious consideration, Funtleyder said.

“I don’t think a lot of people thought there was a high probability that [Lilly] would lose, because these cases usually go in favor of the innovator,” he said. “But Teva is one of the smarter generics.”

Teva has sought to market a cheaper generic version of Evista, also known as raloxifene.

The decision wasn’t a total victory for Lilly. Barker said its patents on Evista’s particle size are invalid. Lilly said it is considering whether to appeal that part of the ruling.

The expiration date for the particle-size patents, which involve the size of the molecule used in Evista, had been 2017. If Lilly appeals the judge’s ruling, and it is successful, it could market Evista for an additional three years without a threat from generics.

“Patents provide us a limited amount of time to recoup our investments,” Lilly spokesman Mark Taylor said following the decision. “This is how we reinvest that money back into the research and development of the next generation of pharmaceuticals.”

The stock market had little reaction to the court decision. Lilly shares were down 6 cents late this morning, trading at $32.38 each.

 

ADVERTISEMENT

  • evista generic
    I cannot wait until this drug is generic because it is so expensive.

    Thank you!

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. Irvington is up and coming much like Fountain Square. We would love to have something like this in our neighborhood!

  2. Why do we care who has submitted proposals if we can't review the proposals? It's publicly owned land, but the public has zero say in what gets chosen to be built there. Yep, that sounds about right.

  3. Perhaps May 21 is "Evangelical Day" over at the IBJ?

  4. I don't know what's more depressing: that this passes for a defensible elective in a publicly funded SCIENCE class, or that more than half of the posters here are defending this charlatan. Intelligent design is creationism. Creationism is religion. Yes, we have freedom of religion, which deserves to be protected. Now someone kindly show Professor Hedin his freedom by escorting him over to the Religion department at BSU. Carry on.

  5. I hope people realize that the 'vocal' opposition at the meeting represent the minority of people against this project. As with any controversial project - those who don't want it are the loudest, while those who like it or really don't care one way or the other don't come to such meetings. Unfortunately the same may be true of the survey now being offered by the BRVA. I live less than a 5 minute walk from BR Avenue and can tell you that I and most of my neighbors are support this exciting project, or are ambivalent. And how great that it includes quality apartments - something that BR sorely lacks. This is a first class opportunity that we should embrace (and no, I'm not with the BRVA or the developer.) As for the fellow who owns the Good Earth store, if he doesn't want competition then let him pull together his own investors and out bid Whole Foods to operate the proposed grocery component! Come on folks - let's move ahead.

ADVERTISEMENT