Glaxo’s Zantac
Executive Summary
Closing arguments completed Aug. 18 in the Glaxo v. Novopharm patent infringement trial with Novopharm lead attorney Robert Green claiming the form 2 ('431) patent is invalid because Glaxo misled the U.S. patent examiner, Green stated that Glaxo is guilty of "inequitable conduct" for including erroneous infra-red spectroscopy and X-ray powder diffraction data to overcome the questions of the patent examiner who issued the Zantac form 2 patent is 1985. Glaxo lead attorney Stephen Judlowe denied the charge of inequitable conduct and defended Glaxo's actions saying that while the submitted data was not appropriate, there was no "intent" on Glaxo's part to mislead the patent examiner. The court is expected to rule on the case by the end of the year.
You may also be interested in...
Part D Discount Liability Coming Into Focus: CMS Releases Drug Cost Data
Newly released Medicare Part D data sheds light on the sales hit that branded pharmaceutical manufacturers will face when the coverage gap discount program gets under way in 2011
FDA Skin Infections Guidance Spurs Debate On Endpoint Relevance
FDA appears headed for a showdown with clinicians and the pharmaceutical industry over the proposed new clinical trial endpoints for acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections, the guidance's approach for justifying a non-inferiority margin and proposed changes in the types of patients that should be enrolled in trials
Shire Hopes To Sow Future Deals With $50M Venture Fund
Specialty drug maker Shire has quietly begun scouting deals with a brand-new $50 million venture fund, the latest of several in-house investment arms to launch with their parent company's pipelines, not profits, as the measure of their worth