Eli Lilly Raises Stakes: Says Canada Now Owes It $500 Million For Not Granting A Patent It Wanted
from the too-much-is-never-enough dept
A few months ago we wrote about the extraordinary -- and worrying -- case of Eli Lilly suing Canada after the latter had refused to grant a pharma patent. Eli Lilly's contention was that by failing to grant its patent (even if it didn't meet the criteria for a patent in Canada), Canada had "expropriated" Eli Lilly's property -- and that it should be paid $100 million as "compensation".
But it seems that the company has had second thoughts. Not that its action was outrageous, and that it ought quietly to retract its suit in the hope that people might just forget about this display of presumption; instead, it has decided it was far too generous in asking for only $100 million, as this Globe and Mail story explains:
U.S. pharmaceutical giant Eli Lilly and Co. has escalated a challenge it launched last year against Canada's patent rules under the North American free-trade agreement, and is now demanding $500-million in compensation after the company lost its Canadian patents on two drugs.
This shows that the initial action was no one-off, and that if Eli Lilly's action succeeds, we can expect it and many other companies to avail themselves of this method of extracting money from the public purse, as provided for under NAFTA's investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) clauses.
Indianapolis-based Lilly has expanded the NAFTA case over the loss of its patent for Strattera, a drug used to treat attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, to also include Canada's invalidation of the company's patent for Zyprexa, which is used to treat schizophrenia.
What's troubling is that similar ISDS schemes are being negotiated for both TPP and TAFTA/TTIP. That will give corporations even more opportunities to sue nations for supposed "expropriation", and to challenge perfectly legitimate local laws that dare to stand in the way of bigger profits.
Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and on Google+
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: canada, investor state disputes, patents
Companies: eli lilly
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Tough call
But I hate to think of the damage that will happen until then.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Tough call
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Tough call
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Tough call
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Tough call
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Tough call
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Tough call
Whatever the result, it's not possible for them to get screwed over. They either get a whole bunch of money for nothing, or they don't.. They can only get screwed over in their heads where Canada owes them something.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Tough call
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Eli Lilly is pissed because it doesn't own Canadian govermnent
If that right of ownership is not granted, then at least the Canadian government should do whatever a foreign corporation wants.
If a government, including Canada, does not bow to every wish of a foreign corporation, then shouldn't it be able to be sued according to somebody's (whos?) laws for big bucks?
Considering the general state of (lack of) understanding American's have of world geography, world politics, etc, wouldn't the executives at Ely Lilly consider Canada to be just another US possession, territory or state like Mexico and therefore subject to American Corporate laws?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Eli Lilly is pissed because it doesn't own Canadian govermnent
Now, if only magic could return... :D
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Eli Lilly is pissed because it doesn't own Canadian govermnent
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Blame Canada
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Blame Canada
Piracy - Canada's fault
Terrorism - yup, Canada too
Child porn - darn Canadians
Bad acting - oh, wait, that really does come from there
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Blame Canada
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Blame Canada
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Blame Canada
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Blame Canada
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Blame Canada
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Blame Canada
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Cut
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Lilly claims that Canadian Federal Court judges, using what the drug company calls a “promise doctrine,” are demanding that patents include too much scientific proof of the efficacy of a drug at early stages."
Seriously they're complaining that they actually have to prove the drug works.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Eli Lilly and ethics
I also note that the "free trade treaty" adherents want anything in the world OTHER than free trade. If they really did, then anybody could make those life-saving and life-changing drugs. Thank God we finally have THAT issue settled.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Eli Lilly and ethics
That's because you're not a drug company. Drug companies are notorious for their total lack of ethics or sense of shame.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Eli Lilly and ethics
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Eli Lilly and ethics
Yeah, being a complete and utter sociopath is pretty much a given for the higher ups in companies like that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
RE: This May Be Very Bad for ELI Lilly in the End
Canada used the same law to prevent the licensing of THC in a inhaler. It was designed as an anti-nausea and for pain relief. If ELI Lilly winds this case, we will license the this drug and demand that it be licensed in the US. We can sell it for a lot less that existing medications. If the US fails to license it, we will demand billions in lost profits.
Or we could consider the attempt the selling of an inferior drug a terrorist act. The US has set the standard of behaviour for that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: RE: This May Be Very Bad for ELI Lilly in the End
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
why does everywhere not get off this meal ticket that was introduced by the USA, as is the usual case when there is something introduced that can screw everyone else but make an American industry/company/person a fortune for doing nothing, just like the way all countries are threatened by the US over copyright etc not being strict enough. we all know that this aids no one except the US but everywhere is expected to lose out in order to make things better for Hollywood!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
ISDS are anti-democratic
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Still,...
You know how some countries can pass laws making it illegal to sue a Telco over their cooperation with spy agencies? Well, Canada can pass a law nullifying the big pharma's lawsuit; or they could cave, hand out the money, effectively ringing a giant dinner bell and yelling "come and git it!"
If Eli claims that's not constitutional - well Canada has a loophole you can drive a truck through, that a law can be passed "notwithstanding" that it would be otherwise unconstitutional, if there's a big enough majority (66% IIRC). If the Conservatives don't want to pay, and the main opposition NDP don't believe in handing money to big business - sorry, no money.
I'm guessing if push comes to shove they will simply pass a law saying that EL is SOL.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Investor-State dispute against the U.S.?
Ah, apparently so -- you'd think a little "good for the goose, good for the gander" might change their minds.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Investor-state_dispute_settlement#Apotex_v._the_United_State s
[ link to this | view in chronology ]