Biota, a small Australian drug firm, has been trying to drum up support and interest in its lawsuit against GlaxoSmithKline (GSK). The suit alleges that GSK failed to promote the drug, therefore Biota deserves hundreds of millions of dollars. Namely, GSK, “failed to use best endeavors to market the drug.”
Needless to say, I’m skeptical. First, Biota is claiming that Relenza is not plagued with resistance issues or other problems associated with Tamiflu from Roche. Fair disclosure—maybe not, but Relenza has its own issues that almost kept the product off the market in the U.S. Biota is touting studies in Nature and Lancet showing Relenza’s superiority (I have been unable to review these directly, so can’t comment on the level of scientific rigor).
I’m fascinated by the idea that a company (GSK) should be liable for not achieving market share, which is what Biota is alleging. In information obtained from Biota, they could not point to any instances of GSK’s failing to promote the drug other than not achieving the desired level of market share.
To be fair to the Biota folks, this is not the only time GSK has failed to put its full muscle behind a product. After the merger, GSK found itself with two antidepressants—Paxil and Wellbutrin. GSK put its full muscle behind Paxil (plagued with adverse event problems and litigation), while Wellbutrin languished. A few short years later, Paxil is generic, GSK is settling Paxil lawsuits and Wellbutrin is one of the 30 largest brands in the land with $2.0 billion in sales.
Meanwhile, Biota’s attempts to gain interest in the lawsuit seem successful. Pharmalot, On Pharma, and the General Health Care Blog all covered the story.
This could be tilting at windmills, but worth watching…
