Eli Lilly Officially Sues Canada For 'Lost Profits' Because Canada Rejected Eli Lilly's Patents
from the incredible dept
A few years ago, we noted that Eli Lilly was facing some hard times, in large part because it had focused its entire business model around getting patents, and many of those patents were expiring, and very few new ones were in the pipeline. Even so, it was still rather surprising earlier this year to see Eli Lilly claim that Canada owed it $100 million for undermining the company's "expected future profits" by rejecting an Eli Lilly patent. The Canadian court reasonably felt that it shouldn't give Eli Lilly a patent on something that wasn't determined to be useful. Normally, if a country doesn't give you a patent, you move on. However, Eli Lilly used a questionable part of NAFTA, the so-called investor-state dispute resolution mechanism, to argue that Canada was "expropriating its property," and thus demanded compensation -- starting at $100 million, which it then raised to $500 million.A few weeks ago, Eli Lilly's CEO wrote an op-ed piece, claiming that by not granting his company a monopoly, Canada was "suffocating life-saving innovation." That's wrong. And it's obnoxious. For years we've covered how the pharmaceutical industry has actually used patents to hold back life-saving innovations by locking them up, blocking advances, jacking up the price to absolutely insane rates, and by using a variety of other questionable practices (including patenting historical folk medicines). But, more importantly, every country gets to determine what is and what is not patentable. For Eli Lilly to use trade policies to effectively try to negate Canada's patent validity standards is a blatant attack on Canadian sovereignty.
And now the official case has been filed and Eli Lilly is basically demanding that $500 million because Canada decided that an Eli Lilly drug wasn't worth a patent.
Keep this in mind as we discuss the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) agreement and the upcoming EU-US trade agreement TTIP/TAFTA, because companies are asking for similar dispute resolution mechanisms, and this could become a big, big deal. Remember how New Zealand recently has put in a law that should mostly ban software patents? Imagine if Microsoft and others suddenly started trying to sue that country for "lost profits" because it won't give them patents on their software.
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 dispute resolution, nafta, patents, tafta, tpp, trade agreements, ttip
Companies: eli lilly
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
This could be good actually
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: This could be good actually
No matter the result of the case, there will be more push on ISD since it can now be claimed to be necessary. The only question is if the fight is for harsher language (Lilly loses the case) or forcing the provisions on every future deal (Lilly wins the case).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: This could be good actually
The US is not a nation that is self reflective, no more than playground bullies are self reflective. The ploy is self righteousness, the end justifies the means is the spin. We are special and the other guys are the villains who are victimizing us. OH WAIT, that was also Hitlers message "we are a pure and special race and these Jews are villains who are hurting us" So that gives us the right to invade and pillage.
This is what Putin is trying to point out if anybody is listening, be self reflective and ask the question why does the rest of the world see the US as a bully? Why does the US have to protect itself from terrorism in the first place, why is it always a threatened victim?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Remember 1812!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The same rules no longer apply and there is 0 (ZERO) chance of a repeat should a repeat not be desired...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Canada pissed away
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
They're certainly not about consumers, or even the average voter. Which is why many countries see riots when new "free trade" agreements are proposed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If there aren't alternatives, or if alternative drugs don't work for some, it could hurt a lot of people.
That's a really nasty business..
We allowed them patents and enforced them on our people for their own benefits. And then they use it to create something we need, and begin bossing us around with legal threats..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Drug companies hate it for obvious reasons, the public loves it, also for obvious reasons, so that would probably be a great way to send a message to any other companies that feel like they are 'owed' profits in a country and try to enforce their entitlement through a broken system.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Eli Lilly didn't think this through
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Refuse to recognize the court's authority over patents
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Downloading a movie off the internet starves the cameraman industry, after all. Those guys totally deseve millions from Canada.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yawn
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
i hope that the various courts see sense here before there are some extremely serious back lashes and that these particular 'additions' present atm in the un-public TPP and similar Trade Negotiations are REMOVED NOW and FOR GOOD!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- never go full retard -
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Like the US did with all the softwood lumber ruling against them.
Or basically like they way the US reacts to any ruling against them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Eli Lilly has a problem with authority
It helps to read the regulations and apply them. But they only do that when trying to get around laws, not when they should be trying to obey them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hostile takeover of governments by corporations
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
An horrific basis for litigation
Do they also feel they have the right to sue hospitals, or clinics, if their physicians choose not to prescribe their drugs?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No country is going to want a law that's interpreted as "You have to approve patents or you'll get sued".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
New Canadian tax
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]