Bayer Cipro Patent Deception Lawsuit – Our Patent Agent and Lawyer Were Old, Confused, and Had Degenerative Diseases Which Lead To Bad Decisions

I do have to admit this is getting pretty weak as how did they function so well and get Teva to accept millions not to make a generic equivalent and after Teva agreed not to manufacture a generic, Bayer raised the price by 16% as they were still the only game in town.   These are the agreements that everyone is looking for now as they work for better profits but keep generic drugs out of reach and we pay more. 

After making additional billions perhaps here, this doesn’t sound like a very strong defense does it? If they were that troubled how did they perform such complicated and time consuming work?  This meant a ton of money for Bayer and now that records are being unsealed, we are seeing a lot things we didn’t know much about.  BD 

Bayer (BAY) has come up with a brand new legal argument in the fight over the legitimacy of its patent on the antibiotic Cipro: The insanity defense.

In an appeal filing in a California state court, Bayer purportedly claims that two executives who may have concealed evidence showing its patents on Cipro were invalid must be mistaken because they suffer from “depression,” “confused thinking,” were elderly, had a “cerebral hemorrhage” and “Parkinson’s or related degenerative disease involving extreme mental degeneration.”

The plaintiffs, California consumers who allege that Bayer’s exclusive patent rights to Cipro led to them pay higher prices for the drug, claim that it’s “incredible and unbelievable” that a patent agent and a lawyer could perform such technical, complicated work while also suffering from “crippling mental infirmities.”

Underneath the redactions, however, lay the financial details of how much money is at stake in the case — between $1.6 billion and $5.7 billion — and Bayer’s alleged insistence that its own patent executives are completely bonkers.  In 1996, Bayer believed it would earn $1.6 billion in profits on Cipro, the plaintiffs allege. A generic drug maker, Barr (now Teva), filed to make a cheap generic version of Cipro, so Bayer made a $398 million “reverse payment” to Barr and the latter agreed not to sell its competing drug. Bayer’s board of directors were told that $3.3 billion in revenues were at stake if Barr’s version of Cipro was allowed onto the market, the plaintiffs claim.

Insanity Defense: Bayer Blames Alleged Patent Deception on Execs' "Extreme Mental Degeneration" | BNET Pharma Blog | BNET

Technorati Tags: Bayer, marketing, Cipro, Teva, drugs, pharma, lawsuit