Fabry Patients Sue Genzyme Over Drug Shortage; After NIH Refuses To Allow Others To Make Fabrazyme

from the people-are-dying dept

One of the more horrifying stories of patents costing lives out there is the situation with Genzyme and Fabrazyme. As we detailed, not enough of the drug is being made allegedly due to manufacturing errors by Genzyme (for which it was fined $175 million by the FDA), and its causing serious health problems -- and even death -- to the sufferers of Fabry disease, who are caught in the middle of this. The patients asked the NIH to allow others to make the drug, via a "march-in" order, so that there would be enough supply, but the NIH refused, basically because it said that the patients (you know, the people actually suffering) couldn't make such a request. The end result, of course, is that lives remain at risk. Genzyme is apparently now rationing the drug, only giving 50% of the recommended dosage, despite a study suggesting that such reduced dosages are a problem:
Neither Genzyme nor Mt. Sinai has tested whether the reduced dosage is either safe or beneficial for treating Fabry disease. In fact, in November 2010, The European Medical Agency determined that the lowered dose of Fabrazyme resulted in patients having more strokes, heart attacks, renal disease and other symptoms including severe GI distress and pain and burning in their extremities (neuropathy). It also determined that the lowered dose actually accelerated the course of the disease in some patients. Europe recommended in October 2010 that all patients be given a full dose of Fabrazyme instead of the lowered dose. Genzyme rejected the European assessment and continued to provide only unapproved low doses to patients in the U.S.
The lawyer for some of those patients, Allen Black, alerts us to the news that his clients have now sued Genzyme and Mt. Sinai Medical School over the continuing shortages (pdf). Mt. Sinai is the actual patent holder, with an exclusive license to Genzyme. The patients are arguing for "compensation and punitive damages for lack of adequate treatment and Genzyme's failure to take adequate precautions including keeping a reserve inventory and providing second sources of manufacturing."

Part of the lawsuit is based on negligence claims -- and given the FDA fine, perhaps there's a basis for a negligence claim. The latter part of the case may be more interesting, however. I'm not sure how much of a chance it actually has, though I certainly sympathize with the plaintiffs. At a high level, it may be tough to show that Genzyme has any legal obligation to make enough of the drug (a moral obligation may be a different story). However, the lawyers make a very key point concerning patent law in making this legal argument: that the Bayh-Dole Act actually gives Genzyme a legal obligation.

The Bayh-Dole Act was designed to help universities better commercialize research in order to get those innovations out to market. For a variety of reasons, I've argued that the law has failed significantly in this regard, but these patients are picking up on a key part of Bayh-Dole, which is that the law was put in place to prevent patentees from denying citizens access to publicly funded inventions. It thus may require that certain standards be met when it comes to federally funded inventions -- which Fabrazyme certainly is. The law specifically says that it was put in place to "protect the public against nonuse or unreasonable use of inventions." And since the plaintiffs feel that this is the case here, they're arguing that they're now able to recover damages (though you'd have to imagine they'd prefer full doses). If that argument succeeds, it could lead to a very interesting series of follow-up cases concerning other federally-funded inventions.

Filed Under: bayh-dole, fabrazyme, fabry disease, patents, rationing
Companies: genzyme, mt. sinai

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

  1. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 17 Mar 2011 @ 11:28am

    Re: eminent domain

    Short answer is "yes".

    BTW, the exercise of march-in rights would not be based upon eminent domain, but on contract. Hence, there would be no requirement for the government to pay "just compensation" as mandated by the Fifth Amendment when private property is taken for public use when march-in rights are employed.

Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter

Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Follow Techdirt
Techdirt Gear
Shop Now: Techdirt Logo Gear
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads


Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.