The discovery of tetracycline engendered an enormous amount of litigation. In late 1958, the U.S. government charged Pfizer and American Cyanamid with price fixing in connection with tetracycline. [1] That and other related litigation lasted until 1982. Often, the series of cases is referred to as the “antibiotics litigation.”
Backgroundedit
The focal point of the case was the two companies’ settlement of an interference proceeding before the PTO (the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office) over the priority of their respective applications for tetracycline. Under the settlement, American Cyanamid, which had acquired Heyden Chemicals‘s pending tetracycline application, conceded the priority of Pfizer’s application, withdrew its own application and exchanged cross licenses with Pfizer. According to the indictment of American Cyanamid, Bristol Myers, Pfizer, and Cyanamid knew that tetracycline represented a threat to the continuation of their dominant positions and unreasonably high profits. To keep that threat in check, the indictment alleges, Cyanamid bought out Heyden's rights to the development and agreed to help Pfizer get the tetracycline patent. In return, charges the Justice Department, Pfizer licensed Cyanamid to produce the drug. Later, to avoid a court fight that might have nullified the patent, Pfizer and Cyanamid let Bristol-Myers in. [2]
The Federal Trade Commission found that the cross-license, combined with the fact that Pfizer had withheld information that it knew or should have known was relevant to the patentability of tetracycline, constituted an attempt by Pfizer and American Cyanamid to share in an unlawful monopoly. [3] Ultimately, the government lost. [4]
The government also sought to cancel the Pfizer patent on tetracycline, alleging fraud and the concealment of information that would have been relevant to the patent examiner. The government lost the final appeal of that case in 1982. [5]
^ “Government: Dissent on the Wonder Drugs,” Aug. 11, 1958, and Pub Policy: Pricing Fixing.
^ “Public Policy: Antitrust and & Antibiotics, August 25, 1961.
^ Cacciapaglia and Rockman, “Proposed Drug Industry Antitrust Act--Patents, Pricing, and the Public “ 30 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 875, 894 (1961-1962); Kennedy, “Patent and Antitrust Policy--Acquisition of Patents by Fraud or by Unfair or Deceptive Acts or Practices,” 35 George Washington Law Review 512, 531 (1966-1967) For an early discussion, see Costello, “The Tetracycline Conspiracy: Structure, Conduct and Performance in the Drug Industry,” Antitrust L. & Economic Rev. 12 (1967-1968)
^ State of North Carolina v. Chas Pfizer & Co Inc. 537 F. 2d 67 (4th Cir. 1976).
tetracycline, litigation, discovery, tetracycline, engendered, enormous, amount, litigation, late, 1958, government, charged, pfizer, american, cyanamid, with, price, fixing, connection, with, tetracycline, that, other, related, litigation, lasted, until, 1982. The discovery of tetracycline engendered an enormous amount of litigation In late 1958 the U S government charged Pfizer and American Cyanamid with price fixing in connection with tetracycline 1 That and other related litigation lasted until 1982 Often the series of cases is referred to as the antibiotics litigation Background editThe focal point of the case was the two companies settlement of an interference proceeding before the PTO the U S Patent and Trademark Office over the priority of their respective applications for tetracycline Under the settlement American Cyanamid which had acquired Heyden Chemicals s pending tetracycline application conceded the priority of Pfizer s application withdrew its own application and exchanged cross licenses with Pfizer According to the indictment of American Cyanamid Bristol Myers Pfizer and Cyanamid knew that tetracycline represented a threat to the continuation of their dominant positions and unreasonably high profits To keep that threat in check the indictment alleges Cyanamid bought out Heyden s rights to the development and agreed to help Pfizer get the tetracycline patent In return charges the Justice Department Pfizer licensed Cyanamid to produce the drug Later to avoid a court fight that might have nullified the patent Pfizer and Cyanamid let Bristol Myers in 2 The Federal Trade Commission found that the cross license combined with the fact that Pfizer had withheld information that it knew or should have known was relevant to the patentability of tetracycline constituted an attempt by Pfizer and American Cyanamid to share in an unlawful monopoly 3 Ultimately the government lost 4 The government also sought to cancel the Pfizer patent on tetracycline alleging fraud and the concealment of information that would have been relevant to the patent examiner The government lost the final appeal of that case in 1982 5 See also editPrice fixing casesReferences edit Government Dissent on the Wonder Drugs Aug 11 1958 1 and Pub Policy Pricing Fixing Public Policy Antitrust and amp Antibiotics August 25 1961 2 Cacciapaglia and Rockman Proposed Drug Industry Antitrust Act Patents Pricing and the Public 30 Geo Wash L Rev 875 894 1961 1962 Kennedy Patent and Antitrust Policy Acquisition of Patents by Fraud or by Unfair or Deceptive Acts or Practices 35 George Washington Law Review 512 531 1966 1967 For an early discussion see Costello The Tetracycline Conspiracy Structure Conduct and Performance in the Drug Industry Antitrust L amp Economic Rev 12 1967 1968 State of North Carolina v Chas Pfizer amp Co Inc 537 F 2d 67 4th Cir 1976 U S v Pfizer 676 F 2d 51 1982 Retrieved from https en wikipedia org w index php title Tetracycline litigation amp oldid 1145053091, wikipedia, wiki, book, books, library,
