The firm filed another similar class action in Minnesota on behalf of residents of Minnesota, Illinois, Missouri, North Dakota and Ohio, titled, Engh v. GSK, Court File No. PI 04-012879, State of Minnesota, County of Hennepin, District Court, Fourth Judicial District.
Although discovery is on-going in these cases, hundreds of thousands of documents have been amassed and reviewed, with key documents selected, organized and categorized to prove up the various causes of action in these cases. Depositions of key Glaxo employees have been taken and are continuing, as well as depositions from academic "thought leaders" hired by Glaxo to tout the benefits and safety of Paxil.
A little more than a month after Mr Spitzer charged the company with fraud in New York, on July 8 2004, Glaxo announced an agreement to settle anti-trust litigation involving the antibiotic drug, Augmentin, by paying $92 million to settle a class action brought on behalf of direct purchasers, including pharmaceutical wholesalers, and indirect purchasers such as consumers and third party payers.
The press release said the settlements were being submitted for review to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, where the cases have been pending since 2002.
In an all too familiar refrain, Glaxo once again said that it continued to believe that its actions were appropriate in obtaining and enforcing its patents for Augmentin.
That said, on November 18, 2004, in a press release, the self-proclaimed not-guilty Glaxo said it had agreed to pay $29 million to settle a class action lawsuit brought by the New York State United Teachers Union and other plaintiffs on behalf of consumers forced to pay more for Augmentin.
NYSUT joined the class action in 2002 and other major plaintiffs included the Welfare Fund of the United Federation of Teachers, NYSUT's affiliate in New York City schools.
The suit alleged that Glaxo illegally maintained a monopoly over Augmentin, and without a generic equivalent, consumers were forced to pay more for the drug, according to a press release issued by the Teacher's Union.
"This should send a loud and clear message to the prescription drug industry," said the union's President Tom Hobart in hailing the settlement.
On November 18, 2004 Paxil was back in the spotlight when a press release announced a notification program ordered by the US District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, to alert consumers, insurers, and employee welfare benefit plans who paid for Paxil, or its generic equivalent, paroxetine, to a proposed $65 million settlement of the case against Glaxo.
This lawsuit claims that Glaxo broke antitrust and consumer protection laws by keeping lower cost generic versions of Paxil off the market and included a class of people who paid for Paxil or a generic paroxetine, from January 1, 1998 through September 30, 2004 and included consumers who paid any portion of the cost of Paxil or a generic paroxetine, as well as insurers and Employee Welfare Benefit Plans that paid on behalf of patients and insureds.
In a similar case, on December 1, 2004, the drug Relafen was back in the news again when Glaxo announced in a press release that the company would pay $75 million to settle a lawsuit with a class of consumers and third-part payors who purchased Relafen.
The Prescription Access Litigation (PAL) project had previously announced on May 24, 2004, that its attorneys had settled a suit against Glaxo alleging that it used illegal tactics to maintain its patent on Relafen, and to keep a generic, cheaper version off the market.
"This settlement agreement is a significant victory for consumers who struggle each day with the enormous cost of prescription drugs," PAL Project Director Alex Sugerman-Brozan said.
"Cases such as this," he stated, "put the drug industry on notice that consumers are fed up with the manipulation of drug prices: When drug companies use the courts to illegally extend their patents and keep drug prices artificially high, consumers will not hesitate to turn the tables and fight back through the courts."
The plaintiffs in this case also alleged that Glaxo fraudulently obtained a patent to cover Relafen when internal company documents showed that Glaxo knew that a patent should not be issued.
More "science" in science fiction than meets the eye
After reading the section of your report describing severe agitation in Paxil test subjects, I wondered if Joss Whedon had heard about the situation when he wrote the script for his movie Serenity (spoiler warning: the connection is a major plot point).
Well, keep posting to OpEdNews--can't stop the signal.
by
khedges1 (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 19 comments)
on Saturday, October 14, 2006 at 4:45:19 PM
