Pressure on Pfizer
Settlement offer possible to Lasco and Medimpex in hypertension drug case
United States Congresswoman Carolyn Maloney (second right) is all smiles after Prime Minister Andrew Holness (centre) presents her with a Usain Bolt T-shirt yesterday at the Kimberly Hotel in Manhattan, New York City. Sharing in the occasion are Senator Kamina Johnson Smith, minister of foreign affairs and foreign trade; Ambassador Nigel Clarke (right) and government adviser Delano Seiveright (left). Maloney serves as a senior member of the House Financial Service Committee and the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. Holness wrapped up a series of meetings in New York yesterday following his participation at the United Nations General Assembly. THERE ARE whispers in local legal circles that international pharmaceutical giant, Pfizer, could make an offer to two local firms when they return to the Supreme Court tomorrow to start proceedings into the assessment of damages case involving all three.
The cash-rich Pfizer, which has its corporate headquarters in New York, United States, and local entities Lasco Distributors and Medimpex Jamaica Limited will go back to the court to determine the level of compensation to be awarded to the Jamaican entities for losses they suffered when they were prevented from selling a generic form of the hypertension drug Norvasc.
Lasco has asked the court to award it US$311 million in damages, but Pfizer has countered that the Jamaican entity should be paid no more than US$518,000 for the period it was not allowed to sell the drug.
IMPROVED OFFER
In the case of Medimpex, Pfizer is asking the court to rule that it should not pay out more than US$68,000, instead of the US$11.5 million that the Jamaican firm is demanding.
But an improved offer could be put on the table by Pfizer tomorrow, even while interest is growing locally about the amount and if accepted.
The matter arose from an injunction granted to Pfizer in 2005, which remained in effect until 2012 when the United Kingdom Privy Council upheld rulings by the local courts which favoured Lasco and Medimpex.
Lasco, in documents filed in court, has said the amount being sought is to recover the money and interest it lost because of the Pfizer injunction, which prevented it from taking advantage of the lowerpriced drug it offered to thousands of Jamaicans who were in desperate need of the cheaper medication to fight hypertension. it will be
CHEAPER GENERIC VERSION
The company has submitted documents which reflect an almost continuous increase in the sale of Norvasc during the period that Pfizer controlled the market, and argued that with its cheaper generic version, LasAmlodipine, it would have eaten into the market share.
Lasco has also shown that it has become the dominant player in the market since the injunction was lifted, and is asking the court to reflect on those numbers in arriving at the level of damages.
The parties have been in court since 2002 when Pfizer complained that the companies were infringing on its patent, and eventually got court orders blocking them from selling their products.
Pfizer was granted the patent for the drug Norvasc in Jamaica on January 22, 2007. In 2009, former Supreme Court judge Roy Jones ruled that since the international firm’s patent had expired in Egypt from March 31, 1997, it could not legally register the patent in Jamaica.
Under the Patents Act of 1857, once a patent expires in another country, it cannot be registered in Jamaica. Pfizer then took the matter to the Court of Appeal on the grounds that Jones erred. But Lasco and Medimpex argued that Pfizer’s patent in Jamaica was invalid as it had expired in another country on March 31, 1997.
They further argued that the substance used in the production of the blood pressure drug was published in journals and made available for public and common use in Jamaica from October 1986.
The Court of Appeal unanimously upheld the 2009 Supreme Court ruling and ordered Pfizer to pay compensation and legal costs. Pfizer lost at the Privy Council and could now seek to negotiate a settlement rather than allowing the two local entities to try to convince the local court that they should be paid what they believe they deserve.