FDAnews
www.fdanews.com/articles/169742-mylan-awarded-additional-137-million-in-damages-over-generic-paxil

Mylan Awarded Additional $13.7 Million in Damages Over Generic Paxil

January 29, 2015

Mylan has been awarded another $13.7 million in supplemental damages from GlaxoSmithKline in an ongoing lawsuit against the brandmaker that accuses it of violating a 2007 contract over exclusivity rights to generic antidepressant Paxil.

A New Jersey U.S. district court judge granted Mylan’s bid for the supplemental damages plus $247,869 in prejudgment interest on Jan. 22, bringing total awards in the case to $120.6 million.

GSK agreed to pay the damages on the condition they not be considered an admission of guilt or liability. The UK drugmaker is appealing the case in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, according to the ruling.

Mylan was initially awarded $106.7 million from GSK last March. The West Virginia-based generics maker sued GSK in 2010 after the brandmaker settled a patent challenge from Apotex against Paxil (paroxetine) by licensing that company to market an authorized generic version. Mylan argued that the license amounted to a breach of its own 2007 agreement with GSK promising it generic exclusivity on Paxil until July 2016.

GSK has maintained that the 2007 agreement allowed it to market its own generic Paxil and that licensing an authorized product to Apotex counted under that exception. A jury eventually disagreed.

On top of the jury award, Mylan also sought and in July was granted an order barring Apotex from selling its own version of Paxil.

The $106.7 million award amounts to the money Mylan estimates it would have made between 2010 and the jury ruling in March had the agreement with Apotex not interfered.

Wednesday’s $13.7 million award is for Apotex’s sales of generic Paxil between the time of the jury ruling and when Apotex was enjoined from selling more product, according to court documents. The award was delayed until now because Apotex only recently supplied Mylan with the information it needed to calculate the additional damages to its bottom line.

GSK declined a request for comment. — Bryan Koenig