Retailers sue Pfizer, charge generic Lipitor delay

Five large drug and grocery chains are suing Pfizer Inc. and a second drugmaker, alleging they conspired to delay sales of cheap generic versions of the blockbuster cholesterol drug Lipitor.

Lipitor, the world's top-selling drug ever, had peak sales of nearly $13 billion a year several years ago. Sales dropped sharply after it got U.S. generic competition on Nov. 30.

The lawsuit, filed Thursday by Walgreen Co., the Kroger Co. and three other retailers in U.S. District Court in Trenton, N.J., claims generics should have been available nearly two years earlier, when Lipitor's original patent expired.

The suit accuses Pfizer of patent fraud as well as "illegal, anti-competitive conduct" with generic drugmaker Ranbaxy Laboratories of India to block other generic drugmakers from selling versions of Lipitor, called atorvastatin calcium, until recently.

The suit also accuses New York-based Pfizer of making deals with companies that manage prescription benefits, giving them big discounts on brand-name Lipitor in exchange for those companies limiting sales of generic versions. Generic pills generally bring pharmacies higher profit margins than brand-name medicines do.

Pfizer denies the lawsuit claims and said Friday that it "will defend itself vigorously." A spokesman for Ranbaxy said the company had not been served with the lawsuit and has a policy against commenting on pending litigation.

The plaintiffs, which include Safeway Inc., Supervalu Inc. and HEB Grocery Co. LP, claim the original patent for the active ingredient in Lipitor expired in March 2010 and that Pfizer fraudulently got the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office to grant a follow-on patent that extended Pfizer's monopoly on Lipitor sales.

According to Pfizer, Lipitor has additional patents that run until 2017, in addition to the patent in question in the lawsuit.

The plaintiffs also accuse Pfizer and Ranbaxy of striking a deal to delay competition from other generic versions of Lipitor. Ranbaxy got a six-month window through the end of May when it sold generic Lipitor and the only other generic version on the market was an authorized one

View the Original article

HIV-positive man fights charge that saliva was deadly

Reuters – 6 hrs ago ALBANY, New York (Reuters) - A gay-rights group is urging New York state's high court to overturn the conviction of an HIV-positive man whose saliva was found to be a "dangerous instrument" in a biting case.

David Plunkett was sentenced in 2007 to 10 years in prison for aggravated assault, a felony that requires the use of a "dangerous instrument."

Plunkett argued unsuccessfully the charge could not be sustained because HIV cannot be transmitted through saliva. The Court of Appeals, New York's top court, will hear Plunkett's case on Thursday.

Lambda Legal, a national group that advocates for gays and lesbians and people with HIV, argued in a court brief filed this week that upholding Plunkett's conviction would further stigmatize people living with HIV and AIDS.

"Clearly, the trial court here erroneously believed that HIV could be transmitted by saliva," the Lambda Legal brief reads.

In 2006, the staff at a medical clinic in Ilion, about 70 miles east of Syracuse, called police to complain that Plunkett was causing a disturbance. Police said he punched and bit one of the responding officers, according to court documents.

Herkimer County Court Judge Patrick Kirk in 2007 denied Plunkett's motion to dismiss the aggravated assault charge, ruling that while Plunkett's teeth could not be considered a dangerous instrument, his saliva could.

Plunkett pleaded guilty and was given a 10-year prison sentence. In 2010, an appeals court found that by pleading guilty, Plunkett had forfeited his right to challenge any trial court error.

Plunkett and Lambda Legal argue that under New York law, only substances that are "readily capable of causing death or other serious physical injury" can be considered dangerous instruments.

A number of studies have found saliva does not contain sufficient concentrations of HIV to transmit the virus to other people. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, "contact with saliva alone has never been shown to result in transmission of HIV."

Plunkett's attorney, Audrey Baron Dunning, argued in an appellate brief that upholding Plunkett's conviction could "open the door for enhanced prosecution of persons with many forms of illness, contagious disease or condition."

The Herkimer County District Attorney's office did not return a call seeking comment.

(Editing by Todd Eastham)

View the Original article