IBJNews

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

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

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

  • Off of Evista
    I, too, had to stop - just too expensive. Do you understand that the patent expires in March 2014? Hope so!
  • EVISTA
    I have been taking EVISTA since it has been on market in 1993 I think it is a great drug I looking forward to it going generic it is so expensive I can hardly afford it.
  • Evista
    I need Evista but had to go off it because I couldn't afford it
    • Evista
      Hoping the patent will be removed. Paying high price for 30day refills is not good. I have been taking Evista since 1993. Do not want to switch now to another drug.
      • Evista
        I will be happy to go to the pharmacy and have a cheaper co pay for Evista. I have been on this drug since 1993. Lets hope it sticks for the patent removal. I don't want to change in taking another drug.
      • 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. 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