Glaxo goes to court over Zantac threat
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.Glaxo has counter-attacked against the threat posed to its hugely profitable ulcer drug Zantac by Geneva Pharmaceuticals, which wants to launch a cheap generic version of the product at the end of 1995, writes Gail Counsell.
Glaxo is suing Geneva, the US subsidiary of Ciba Geigy, the Swiss group, and two other companies, Interchem Trading, a US chemical distributor, and Union Quimico Farmaceutica, a Spanish chemical manufacturer. It claims they have infringed its patents on the 'form 2' version of ranitidine hydrochloride, Zantac's active ingredient, and the process used to make it.
In March, Geneva said it was asking the US Food and Drugs Administration for permission to market an early version of the drug known as 'form 1' when the patent expires at the end of 1995. Glaxo has only ever marketed the later 'form 2' version, the patent on which runs until 2002.
Glaxo argues it is impossible to manufacture form 1 without also producing form 2, and so infringing its patent on the later version.
The legal action means that, even if the FDA approves Geneva's application, it is unlikely to be allowed to start marketing the drug until September 1996 at the earliest.
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments