Teva Canada Innovation has sought judicial review, in Federal
Court, of the PMPRB's most recent decision
regarding Teva's drug COPAXONE, used to treat multiple
sclerosis. The decision to be reviewed is actually the second
determination made by the Board in relation to COPAXONE. In order
to understand the significance of Teva's new application, it is
useful to recall the Board's original decision.
A Board Panel made the initial decision in 2008 and found that
COPAXONE had been excessively priced, despite the fact that
COPAXONE was the lowest-priced medicine in its therapeutic class.
The Board's finding of excessive pricing was based on the rate
at which the price of COPAXONE increased from year to year.
Specifically, from its first sale in 2004, the price of COPAXONE
increased from $36.00 to $43.28 by 2010, an increase of $7.20 or
20% in total, during a period when the average annual increase in
the Consumer Price Index was 1.8% per year. Even though COPAXONE
remained the lowest priced medicine in its therapeutic class
throughout the period under review, the Board held that the
year-over-year price increases fell outside the Board's
guidelines and determined that COPAXONE had been excessively
Teva sought judicial review of this initial decision and was
successful. The Federal Court quashed the Board's decision and
ordered the Board to reconsider the matter.
The Federal Court held that the Board failed to give serious
consideration to all the factors in section 85(1). Section
85(1) requires the Board to consider several factors when assessing
whether the price of a medicine is excessive. This section requires
the Board to consider the following factors: (a) the prices at
which the medicine has been sold in the relevant market; (b) the
prices at which other medicines in the same therapeutic class have
been sold in the relevant market; (c) the prices at which the
medicine and other medicines in the same therapeutic class have
been sold in countries other than Canada; (d) changes in the
Consumer Price Index; and (e) other prescribed factors. The
Board had based its decision entirely upon s. 85(1)(d) and the CPI
adjustment methodology set out in the Board's Guidelines. The
Court held that the Board only paid lip service to the other
factors and ordered the Board to reconsider the matter, this time
giving proper consideration to all the s. 85(1) factors. The Board
the reconsidered the matter and released its second decision dated
February 23, 2012.
In the redetermination decision, the Board expanded its analysis
of the section 85(1) factors and directly addressed the fact that
COPAXONE was the lowest priced medicine in its therapeutic class.
However, despite this expanded analysis, the Board's decision
again rested solely on the CPI factor set out in s. 85(1)(d). The
Board's view was that this factor serves to protect Canadian
consumers from "sudden and significant" price increases
and this factor is determinative in the case of COPAXONE.
Ultimately, the Board arrived at a finding of excessive pricing and
ordered Teva to repay excess revenues in a greater amount than in
the previous decision.
Teva has now sought judicial review in Federal Court of the
Board's second decision. Teva's application seeks a further
redetermination and a directed verdict requiring that the
allegations against Teva be dismissed.
The primary ground for Teva's application is that the Board
failed to follow the direction of the Federal Court and again
focused on a single factor, the CPI. Teva argues that Board
has essentially rewritten section 85(1) to be an absolute bar on
price increases that exceed yearly increases in the CPI. Teva
claims that this hard limit was proposed and rejected by Parliament
when the section was drafted. Teva's overarching position in
its application is that the Board's jurisdiction is limited to
regulating price levels rather than price
This case will be an interesting one to watch, given the
deference given to this Board in recent decisions. The facts in
this case (especially the fact that COPAXONE's price was the
lowest in its class) present an ideal setting to test the
Board's CPI adjustment methodology (for the second time).
Staying local but going global presents its challenges. Gowling WLG lawyers offer an international roundtable on doing business in the U.K., France, Germany, China and Russia. This three-hour session will videoconference in lawyers from around the world to discuss business and intellectual property hurdles.
In the inaugural episode of Diversonomics, co-hosts Roberto Aburto and Sarah Willis introduce listeners to the podcast and discuss their experiences with diversity and inclusion in the legal industry. They also outline some of the obstacles the profession faces with respect to adopting new strategies and overhauling old practices.
For episode two of Diversonomics, co-hosts Roberto Aberto and Sarah Willis interview Mark Greenburgh, a partner in Gowling WLG's London office. They discuss the exciting new diversity and inclusion opportunities that have arisen since the combination of Gowlings and Wragge Lawrence Graham, as well at Gowling WLG UK's LGBT OpenHouse initiative.
Mark Greenburgh is a partner in Gowling WLG's London office, with his practice focused on employment litigation. He helps clients find solutions to workplace relationship issues and interpret the special legislation or collective agreements applicable to public sector employees.
Mark is also a Higher Rights Advocate, a Freeman of the City of London, Liveryman of the Worshipful Company of Solicitors, a member of the City of London Employment Law Committee and a Fellow of the Royal Society of Arts.
Lilly markets CIALIS® (tadalafil) in Canada for the treatment of erectile dysfunction. Both Mylan Pharmaceuticals ULC and Apotex Inc. sought approval for generic versions of tadalafil and were opposed by Lilly.
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).