It's no big secret that international drugmakers are miffed at India. Revoking a few drug patents and overriding others will do that. But India's own pharma companies have their own beef with government policy--namely government pricing policies.
South Africa plans to revamp its intellectual-property laws to make it more difficult for pharma companies to win protection for new versions of older drugs. The move comes soon after India's top court backed strict requirements for drug patents.
How is a generic drug's label different from the drug itself? That was one of the many questions posed yesterday as the generics-liability case had its Supreme Court airing.
It's confirmed: Another study shows that U.S. drug spending dropped ever so slightly last year. The obvious culprit is generic drugs, with major blockbusters such as Pfizer's ($PFE) Lipitor and AstraZeneca's ($AZN) Seroquel IR now facing cheap rivals.
The Supreme Court is hopping with pharma news these days. As the top U.S. court prepares to hear arguments tomorrow in the big generics-liability case, some key lawmakers in the generics world are balking at the whole federal-preemption idea.
Generic drugmakers are feeling a little taken advantage of. They produce 80% of the drugs used in the U.S. Their products are saving federal health programs billions of dollars and they are now helping cover some of the FDA budget through user fees.
India's Cipla and its namesake in South Africa, Cipla Medpro, may share a moniker but they haven't seen eye-to-eye on what it will take to share ownership.
Given all of the lousy earnings reports and patent cliff talk, one might have expected last year to be the biggest ever for getting new generic drugs into the U.S. market. One would be wrong.
Can generics makers be held accountable for design flaws in the drugs they copy? That's the essential question in a case the U.S. Supreme Court has decided to review involving a Takeda Pharmaceutical generics unit.
The Federal Trade Commission 's campaign for generic drugs has taken a new twist. The agency, long an opponent of "pay for delay" patent settlements, is now taking up the banner against product tweaks that can keep brands protected for years after initial patents expire.