Letters: Senate bill would help generic drugs compete
Your editorial about the drug Provigil ("FTC remedy has side effects," Sunday) was distressingly weak on the facts and clearly wrong on policy grounds.
Your editorial about the drug Provigil ("FTC remedy has side effects," Sunday) was distressingly weak on the facts and clearly wrong on policy grounds.
You mention that a number of consumers, health plans, and other purchasers have filed class actions against Cephalon and the four generic-drug makers that originally made deals with Cephalon. But you don't discuss the specifics of the allegation: conspiring to restrain trade and prevent competition from lower-cost generic versions of Provigil, in violation of the antitrust laws.
You mention the subpoena controversy between the Federal Trade Commission and Watson Pharmaceuticals, but neglect to discuss the ongoing FTC action against Cephalon, which has already survived a motion to dismiss in Philadelphia federal court. You never mention the allegation that Cephalon paid more than $136 million to the generic manufacturers in exchange for their promise not to compete.
You say that the success of patent challenges is "far from certain," but never mention the facts about the Provigil patent, and how the evidence strongly shows that the patent was invalid or not infringed by the generic makers' formulations. Finally, you never mention that patent holders and their challengers can always settle legitimate disputes; the Senate bill would only bar patent holders from paying competitors not to compete. Such a prohibition is fully consistent with the federal antitrust laws as they have been applied for a century.
Theodore M. Lieverman
Philadelphia
The writer is a partner with Spector Roseman Kodroff & Willis representing plaintiffs in a class-action lawsuit concerning Provigil.