Healthy Skepticism Library item: 7240
Warning: This library includes all items relevant to health product marketing that we are aware of regardless of quality. Often we do not agree with all or part of the contents.
Publication type: news
Loftus P.
Doctor Claims Genentech Owes Millions: Doctor Claims Genentech Owes Millions for His Research
Yahoo Finance 2006 Nov 7
http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/061107/genentech_doctor_s_claim.html?.v=1&printer=1
Abstract:
Genentech Inc. should pay millions of dollars to a Pennsylvania ophthalmologist for his help a decade ago in developing a fast-selling new eye-disease drug, the man’s lawyer told jurors at the close of a trial here Tuesday.
Kourosh Dastgheib, of Lebanon, Pa., claims he shared research materials with the biotechnology company in the mid-1990s that were key to developing Lucentis, which was approved by the Food and Drug Administration earlier this year to treat wet age-related macular degeneration. The disease can cause blindness, and studies have shown Lucentis to be effective in staving off vision loss.
Dastgheib filed a lawsuit against Genentech in 2004, alleging it walked away from a 1995 agreement to pay him royalties of 1 percent of future sales of the drug and recognize his work in the scientific community, if he shared his research with the company.
He had sent Genentech microscopic slides of human eye samples and other materials, which he claims were instrumental in confirming the presence of a substance known as vascular endothelial growth factor, or VEGF, in cases of wet AMD. Lucentis is designed to attack VEGF. Dastgheib was in a medical residency program at the time in North Carolina.
“He had a theory, he proved the theory, he wrote about it, and (Genentech) went to him to get what they needed,” Dastgheib’s lawyer, Raymond Niro, told nine jurors in closing statements in federal court in Philadelphia, following more than two weeks of testimony.
Niro suggested to jurors Dastgheib’s contribution was worth as much as $1.16 billion, or one-third of the net present value of projected Lucentis sales. Lucentis racked up third-quarter sales of about $153 million, exceeding expectations for the new drug.
But Genentech’s lawyer, Kenneth Gallo, told jurors there was no agreement for Genentech to pay Dastgheib a 1 percent royalty and recognize his work in the scientific community. He said Genentech, of South San Francisco, Calif., sent him a $2,000 check as reimbursement for his time collecting the research materials, which Dastgheib cashed.
“There is no evidence of a promise,” Gallo said. Dastgheib claims the agreement was struck during a telephone conversation with a Genentech employee who subsequently left the company.
Gallo said the materials sent by Dastgheib didn’t play a key role in Genentech’s decision to proceed with developing the drug. He said other scientists had confirmed the presence of VEGF in cases of wet AMD.
Gallo also said Dastgheib waited too long to bring legal action against Genentech, exceeding the statutes of limitations.
Gallo asked jurors that if they do find Genentech liable, they limit damages to about $48,000. Jurors can find the company liable if they conclude Genentech was unjustly enriched, or if it violated a North Carolina trade practices law, or if it committed fraud.
The jury was expected to begin deliberating Tuesday afternoon.
Genentech developed Lucentis in a partnership with Novartis AG of Switzerland. Genentech, which is majority-owned by Roche Holding AG of Switzerland, holds commercial rights for Lucentis in the United States, while Novartis has marketing rights for the rest of the world.
Although Lucentis sales have been brisk, it has been dogged by controversy. Some experts say another Genentech drug, the cancer treatment Avastin, is as effective as Lucentis in treating wet AMD, but much cheaper. The National Institutes of Health said earlier this month it planned to fund a study comparing the two drugs.
Genentech shares rose $1.39, or 1.7 percent, to $82.66 in afternoon trading on the New York Stock Exchange.
