AstraZeneca PLC
14 October 2002
PRILOSEC PATENTS RULED VALID IN US TRIAL
AstraZeneca announced today that following a trial in the Southern District
Court of New York, Judge Barbara Jones ruled that two patents ('230 and '505)
relating to the formulation of omeprazole, the active ingredient in Prilosec,
are valid until 2007.
On the matter of infringement in the consolidated proceedings, the judge made
the following ruling:
Company Patent '230 Patent '505
Andrx infringed infringed
Genpharm infringed infringed
Cheminor infringed infringed
Kudco Not infringed Not infringed
The Judge did not render a decision on the '281 patent relating to a process
involved in the manufacture of omeprazole. AstraZeneca brought suit under this
patent against Andrx only.
The trial, which started on December 6, 2001, concluded in June of this year.
Sir Tom McKillop, Chief Executive Officer of AstraZeneca, said: 'We are pleased
by today's judgment upholding the validity of our formulation patents and the
decision that Andrx, Genpharm and Cheminor have infringed the patents. We are
reviewing the Judge's ruling with respect to Kudco and are considering the
appropriate course of action.'
Prilosec, a treatment for acid-related stomach disorders, is AstraZeneca's US
brand name for omeprazole. In 2001, Prilosec had sales of $3.7bn in the US.
- Ends -
Date: 14 October 2002
Media Enquiries: Investor Relations:
Rachel Bloom, Tel: + 1 302 886 7858 Jonathan Hunt, Tel: +44 (0) 207 304 5087
Steve Brown, Tel: +44 (0) 207 304 5033 Mina Blair-Robinson, Tel: +44 (0) 207 304 5084
Emily Denney, Tel: +44 (0) 207 304 5034 Ed Seage, Tel: +1 302 886 4065
Chris Major, Tel: +44 (0) 207 304 5028 Jorgen Winroth, Tel: +1 212 581 8720
Staffan Ternby, Tel: +46 (0) 70 557 4300
NOTE TO NEWS EDITORS:
The consolidated case in the South District Court of New York involving the four
generic manufacturers involved several patents, including those ('505 and' '230)
which were the subject of Judge Jones' decision today. Patent '281 involved
Andrx alone.
The proceedings also involved these further patents:
Patent '499 (sulphenamide salt of omeprazole) was declared not infringed in
summary dismissal and may be appealed by AstraZeneca.
Patents '794 (omeprazole in combination with clarithromycin in the treatment of
H.pylori); '305 (combination therapy for H.pylori related disease); and '342
(H.pylori treatment) have all previously been declared invalid in summary
proceedings. AstraZeneca may also appeal these decisions as part of the overall
appeal process in the case.
Patent '431 relates to the substance of omeprazole, which expired in October,
2001, following six months' additional market exclusivity after AstraZeneca
complied with the FDA's formal request for information on the use of
prescription Prilosec in children. This was originally part of the case but, as
the patent has already expired, was not part of the judgment.
In 2001, the worldwide sales of AstraZeneca omeprazole brands totalled $5.7bn.
In a separate case, it was announced on June 25, that United States District
Court Judge Jed Rakoff, of the Southern District of New York, had dismissed with
prejudice two federal class action antitrust lawsuits brought by consumers and
third-party payors against AstraZeneca. In dismissing the cases, Judge Rakoff
concluded that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that the Prilosec patent
infringement litigation brought by AstraZeneca against 10 generic manufacturers
was a 'sham' or an unlawful attempt to prevent generic competitors from entering
the market. The manufacturers included the four companies involved in the
consolidated trial relating to the infringement of the patents. The third and
only other consumer anti-trust case was voluntarily dismissed by plaintiffs
following Judge Rakoff's decision.
This information is provided by RNS
The company news service from the London Stock Exchange
*A Private Investor is a recipient of the information who meets all of the conditions set out below, the recipient:
Obtains access to the information in a personal capacity;
Is not required to be regulated or supervised by a body concerned with the regulation or supervision of investment or financial services;
Is not currently registered or qualified as a professional securities trader or investment adviser with any national or state exchange, regulatory authority, professional association or recognised professional body;
Does not currently act in any capacity as an investment adviser, whether or not they have at some time been qualified to do so;
Uses the information solely in relation to the management of their personal funds and not as a trader to the public or for the investment of corporate funds;
Does not distribute, republish or otherwise provide any information or derived works to any third party in any manner or use or process information or derived works for any commercial purposes.
Please note, this site uses cookies. Some of the cookies are essential for parts of the site to operate and have already been set. You may delete and block all cookies from this site, but if you do, parts of the site may not work. To find out more about the cookies used on Investegate and how you can manage them, see our Privacy and Cookie Policy
To continue using Investegate, please confirm that you are a private investor as well as agreeing to our Privacy and Cookie Policy & Terms.