Analyze the Manner in PharmaCARE Used Law to Protect Its Own Intellectual Property
PharmaCARE is one of the world 's most successful pharmaceutical companies that is enjoying a status as a nurturing, ethical and well-run business that manufactured high-quality healthcare products. Thus, saved millions of inhabits and enhanced the value of life for millions of people. The company provides free and discounted pharmaceuticals to low-income customers on the base of sponsors health care informative programs and scholarships. Two years before, after PharmaCARE 's research identified that one of its peak trading diabetes drugs (AD23) might slow the progression of Alzheimer 's infection. After identifying the weakness, its pharmacists began reformulating that pharmaceutical to maximize the effect. To avoid FDA inspection, PharmaCARE used US law to protect its intellectual property as it established a wholly-owned subsidiary, CompCARE that is set up beside its parent’s headquarters in a suburban agency park.
PharmaCARE protects own intellectual property through established new branches (CompCARE) as it is only responsible for all
…show more content…
In this case, PharaCARE is liable or responsible for the death of John 's wife and another 200 patients death because it has not followed law or regulation as produce or marketing AD23 (diabetes drugs) insignia officially authorized FDA approval (Johnson, 2003). Use of AD23 (diabetes drugs) impacted on the health of patients that is the main reason of the death of John’s wife and another 200 patients, so the company’s is liable for this issue. John has right to sue a lawsuit against PharmaCARE 's similarly as Joe Strom sued a lawsuit against J&J Company in the above-described
Working in the pharmaceutical industry, there are different types of environments you could possibly work in. There are chain pharmacies, like any kind of grocery store or CVS. There are franchise pharmacies, which are also known as apothecaries. Also, there are community pharmacies, which are also known as retail pharmacies. Some of them are independent pharmacies, which is usually owned by a pharmacist or a group of pharmacists.. There are hospital pharmacies, in which are in the hospital. There are many more different types, these are only a few.
CVC pharmacy chain which is the largest drugstore company the United States of America made dramatic call and decision that received numerous debates and criticism worldwide. The globally trusted company made a controversial decision to take away the tobacco and cigarettes from their stores. The decision from the hugely known drug store company was indeed brave and strategic in consideration of the business ethics that they organizations wanted to maintain. Their decision was made public on February 2014 hence received many reactions from the agencies, governments, individuals, corporate and the media. Therefore, this paper will elaborate the significance of the strategic decisions made in the industry by examining whether the business decision
Federal Trade Commission, 1979. Braithwalte, John. The. Corporate Crime in the Pharmaceutical Industry? Boston, MS: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1984.
...ll help the company in selling generic drugs and provide affordable medications to its customer base.
...pecially with the use of DTC advertising, to such a wide range of afflictions greatly increased their consumer base, but one of them proved to be deadly. In 1999, four years after Lilly sent study results to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration showing Zyprexa didn’t alleviate dementia symptoms in older patients, it began marketing the drug to those very people, according to documents unsealed in insurer suits against the company for overpayment.(Applbaum, 248). Soon after it began to be used in those suffering from dementia, there were studies produces that showed an increase in death rate among elderly patients taking Zyprexa. In January of 2009, Eli Lilly and Company, who produced the drug, ended up settling the lawsuit and agreed to pay $1.415 billion which was one of the biggest corporate settlements in the history of pharmaceutical companies (Applbaum, 237).
In the case of Mutual Pharmaceutical Co., Inc v. Bartlett 133 S. Ct. 2466 (2013), the plaintiff Karen Bartlett was prescribed a medication named Clinoril for shoulder pain. Mutual Pharmaceutical dispensed the prescription in the generic form. The drug caused Karen Bartlett to develop toxic epidermal necrolysis. At the time of the incident, the label of the drug did not specify development of toxic epidermal necrolysis as a possible side-effect. For Karen Bartlett not adequately labeling the medication caused her medical damages. Was Mutual Pharmaceutical Co guilty of noncompliance with consumer protection and product safety laws?
Background: Merck & Co. is an American pharmaceutical company and one of the largest pharmaceutical companies in the world. In 1971 the United States approved the use of an MMR vaccine made by Merck, containing the Jeryl Lynn strain of mumps vaccine. In 1978 Merck introduced the MMR II, using a different strain of the rubella vaccine. In 1997 the FDA required Merck to conduct effectiveness testing of MMRII. Initially it was over 95%; to continue the license; Merck had to convince the FDA that the effectiveness stayed at a similar rate over the years.
Calisi (Plaintiff) developed lymphoma after taking the product manufactured by Abbott Laboratories (Defendant). Plaintiff took an arthritis medication for approximately four years, and brought a lawsuit against Defendant for the illness that he incurred after taking the medication. The lawsuit was filed in the United States Supreme Court in the District of Massachusetts “for breach of the implied warranty of merchantability.” Additionally, the claim brought against the Defendant included negligence because the Defendant failed to warn the Plaintiff of the risk of developing lymphoma from taking the medication.
Lehman, Bruce. 2003. “The Pharmaceutical Industry and the Patent System”. International Intellectual Property Institute. Pages 1-14.
Being presented with the problems in the implementation of the SAP ERP system, it is evident that Novartis Pharmaceuticals requires a comprehensive action plan that resolves key issues and the underlying problem. Refer to Exhibit A for a graphical representation of the action plan.
One must evaluate all parties involved. It can be argued that do to the lack of documentation or communication of the physician this was an act of negligence. A jury can decide that lack of documentation is sufficient evidence in finding a physician guilty of negligence (Pozgar, 2009). When we look at the role of the defendant which was the pharmacist not the physician his duty goes above just filling prescriptions, the duty of a pharmacist is to monitor the patient’s medication. In order for him to have achieved this properly he should have made sure he contacted the physician for further information even if the physician failed to communicate with him. Because of his actions the plaintiff is holding the pharmacist accountable for his treatment and that is not where all of the blame should be consumed. The argument that can be made for the pharmacist is that the pharmacist acted within his scope of practice and left everything to the physician. This situation can easily be construed as, if the physician needed further medications or if there were any adverse reaction then he would have contacted the pharmacist. Once again the prosecutor may argue that the pharmacist had a duty to follow up on any treatment that he provided to a patient. These arguments would be the most persuasive. These are the key elements in determining the case being argued. For example the pharmacist not following up with the patient’s physician may be
The Plaintiffs of the case are Glynace H. Norton and his wife, Anne Graves Norton, The defendants of the case are the insurer of the Baton Rouge hospital: Argonaut Insurance Company, Mrs. Florence Evans R.N,,ADON (Registered Nurse/Assistant Director of Nursing services) whom had administered the fatal medication; and Aetna Casualty & Surety Company, that covered the liability insurance for Dr. John B. Stotler, who delivered the negligent order.
Scherer, A. (2012) ‘M&A in Big Pharma: Holy Grail or Buying Time’, Contract Pharma, 21 Mar [Online]. Available at: http://www.contractpharma.com/contents/view_experts-opinion/2012-03-21/ma-in-big-pharma/#sthash.NnrBSo3O.dpuf (Accessed at: 15 December 2013)
With the increased cost of manufacturing, pharmaceutical companies have been divesting in their smaller or less profit making operations and focus on large segments. Many Pharmaceutical companies sold their manufacturing sites to contract manufacturing organizations. The dynamics of interfacing with contract manufacturing organization added intricacy in pharmaceutical supply chain network of pharmaceutical companies.
The case under analysis, Eli Lilly & Company, will be covering the positives and negatives with regards to the business situation and strategy of Eli Lilly. One of the major pharmaceutical and health care companies in its industry, Lilly focused its efforts on the areas of "drug research, development, and marketed to the following areas: neuroscience, endocrinology, oncology, cardiovascular disease, and women's health." Having made a strong comeback in the 1990's due to its remarkably successful antidepressant Prozac, was now facing a potential loss in profits with its patent soon to expire. The problem was not only the soon to expire patent on Prozac, but the fact that Prozac accounted for as much as 30% of total revenue was the reality Eli Lilly now faced. (Pearce & Robinson, 34-1)