Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%

Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.

Drug & Device News

By ALM Staff | Law Journal Newsletters |
April 29, 2013

FTC Finds Pay-for-Delay on the Rise

A Federal Trade Commission (FTC) report says that in fiscal year 2012, name-brand and would-be generic pharmaceuticals manufacturers entered into 40 potential “pay for delay” agreements, a sharp increase from previous years. These types of deals are currently under scrutiny by the U.S. Supreme Court, which has been asked to decide whether they promote unlawful monopolies in the field of drug sales. “Sadly, this year's report makes it clear that the problem of pay-for-delay is getting worse, not better,” said FTC Chairman Jon Leibowitz in an FTC release. “More and more brand and generic drug companies are engaging in these sweetheart deals, and consumers continue to pay the price. Until this issue is resolved, we will all suffer the consequences of delayed generic entry ' higher prices for consumers, businesses, and the U.S. taxpayer.” U.S. regulators are not the only ones turning a jaundiced eye on the concept of pay for delay: For example, on Jan. 31, European Union regulators formally accused drug makers Johnson & Johnson and Novartis of colluding to keep generic versions of the drug fentanyl out of the Dutch market.

'

Does Zoloft Work?

A class action lawsuit has been filed against Pfizer Inc., the maker of antidepressant Zoloft. According to plaintiff attorney Michael Baum, senior managing partner at Los Angeles-based Baum, Hedlund, Aristei & Goldman, “This case is not a fraud-on-the-FDA case. It's a claim that the prescribing doctors and patients have been misinformed or under-informed about Zoloft's inability to outperform placebos in many trials in their advertising and labeling that went to the public and to media and to patients and physicians. They were being misled.” In response, Pfizer spokesman Steve Danehy issued an e-mailed statement, in which he said, “Pfizer believes the lawsuit filed in California is groundless and is based largely on information first published over three years ago that has been widely criticized by many experts in the mental health field. Moreover, plaintiffs in this putative class action seek refunds for Zoloft, even though FDA approved the medicine for the treatment of depression and their physicians prescribed it for this same purpose, under a legally unsupportable theory that FDA never should have approved the medicine.”

'

Rabies Caused Organ Recipient's Death

The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) confirmed in a March 15 release that a man who recently died in Maryland succumbed to rabies he contracted from an infected organ donor. The Maryland Department of Health opened an investigation into the man's death in early March, and discovered that the deceased had had no known contact with an infected animal. This led to an investigation into the cause of the organ donor's 2011 death, which, at that time, was not suspected of being rabies-related. New tests showed that both the Florida donor and the Maryland organ recipient died of a type of rabies found in raccoons, dogs and other animals. This case is unusual not only because it is the first documented organ-transplant rabies death since 2004, but also because the Maryland organ recipient showed no symptoms until more than a year after the transplant. The normal incubation period for rabies is one to three months.

Three other patients received organs donated by the infected Florida donor. They were notified and put on rabies preventive treatment. According to the CDC's release, organ donors usually are not screened for rabies, as the number of rabies-related deaths in the United States each year is usually fewer than three, and the period of time needed to test for rabies will generally be too long to keep the donated organs viable for use in recipients.

'

FTC Finds Pay-for-Delay on the Rise

A Federal Trade Commission (FTC) report says that in fiscal year 2012, name-brand and would-be generic pharmaceuticals manufacturers entered into 40 potential “pay for delay” agreements, a sharp increase from previous years. These types of deals are currently under scrutiny by the U.S. Supreme Court, which has been asked to decide whether they promote unlawful monopolies in the field of drug sales. “Sadly, this year's report makes it clear that the problem of pay-for-delay is getting worse, not better,” said FTC Chairman Jon Leibowitz in an FTC release. “More and more brand and generic drug companies are engaging in these sweetheart deals, and consumers continue to pay the price. Until this issue is resolved, we will all suffer the consequences of delayed generic entry ' higher prices for consumers, businesses, and the U.S. taxpayer.” U.S. regulators are not the only ones turning a jaundiced eye on the concept of pay for delay: For example, on Jan. 31, European Union regulators formally accused drug makers Johnson & Johnson and Novartis of colluding to keep generic versions of the drug fentanyl out of the Dutch market.

'

Does Zoloft Work?

A class action lawsuit has been filed against Pfizer Inc., the maker of antidepressant Zoloft. According to plaintiff attorney Michael Baum, senior managing partner at Los Angeles-based Baum, Hedlund, Aristei & Goldman, “This case is not a fraud-on-the-FDA case. It's a claim that the prescribing doctors and patients have been misinformed or under-informed about Zoloft's inability to outperform placebos in many trials in their advertising and labeling that went to the public and to media and to patients and physicians. They were being misled.” In response, Pfizer spokesman Steve Danehy issued an e-mailed statement, in which he said, “Pfizer believes the lawsuit filed in California is groundless and is based largely on information first published over three years ago that has been widely criticized by many experts in the mental health field. Moreover, plaintiffs in this putative class action seek refunds for Zoloft, even though FDA approved the medicine for the treatment of depression and their physicians prescribed it for this same purpose, under a legally unsupportable theory that FDA never should have approved the medicine.”

'

Rabies Caused Organ Recipient's Death

The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) confirmed in a March 15 release that a man who recently died in Maryland succumbed to rabies he contracted from an infected organ donor. The Maryland Department of Health opened an investigation into the man's death in early March, and discovered that the deceased had had no known contact with an infected animal. This led to an investigation into the cause of the organ donor's 2011 death, which, at that time, was not suspected of being rabies-related. New tests showed that both the Florida donor and the Maryland organ recipient died of a type of rabies found in raccoons, dogs and other animals. This case is unusual not only because it is the first documented organ-transplant rabies death since 2004, but also because the Maryland organ recipient showed no symptoms until more than a year after the transplant. The normal incubation period for rabies is one to three months.

Three other patients received organs donated by the infected Florida donor. They were notified and put on rabies preventive treatment. According to the CDC's release, organ donors usually are not screened for rabies, as the number of rabies-related deaths in the United States each year is usually fewer than three, and the period of time needed to test for rabies will generally be too long to keep the donated organs viable for use in recipients.

'

This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only

  • Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
  • Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
  • Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts

For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473

Read These Next
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws Image

This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.

Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin Image

With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.

The Article 8 Opt In Image

The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.

Removing Restrictive Covenants In New York Image

In Rockwell v. Despart, the New York Supreme Court, Third Department, recently revisited a recurring question: When may a landowner seek judicial removal of a covenant restricting use of her land?

Fresh Filings Image

Notable recent court filings in entertainment law.