Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Novo Nordisk's Canadian Mistake

science.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 245 posts

Re: Novo Nordisk's Canadian Mistake

#141

Post by loeg »

dghlsakjg wrote: post #92
rahimnathwani wrote: post #20

AIUI, because they let the patent expire, the drug was not subject to price regulation by the government. So they could charge whatever. And during most of that time, they were still protected by 'data exclusivity' which means that any generic producer could not get approved without doing their own clinical trials, until 8 years had passed. So they gave up some period of exclusivity in return for being able to charge…

The price in Canada is ~$175 USD month for name brand Ozempic where I am with no coupons, or other discounts. I see prices in the US around $800+/month. That is significantly cheaper than the US, and cheaper than other GLP-1 class drugs up here, arguably reasonable. Is the supposition that they would have been forced to charge even less? If so, why are their competitors who kept their patents not charging more? Count…

The US price for name brand is around $500/mo. More than $175, but not $800.

Re: Novo Nordisk's Canadian Mistake

#142

Post by enslavedrobot »

Fun fact: Novo Nordisk's first success was selling insulin, which was discovered in Canada and licensed by the Scientists who's discovered it for free to the danish company in exchange for a promise to use the revenues "for good purposes".

Hopefully this patent SNAFU makes up for 1% of that monumental screw job.

Re: Novo Nordisk's Canadian Mistake

#143

Post by 0cf8612b2e1e »

nijuashi wrote: post #131
0cf8612b2e1e wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I always wonder-in this case of such an epic company fuck up, does anyone ever get fired? Or is responsibility so diffuse that nobody is ultimately responsible? Pharma companies are really nothing more than holders of time-limited, expensive, exclusive IP. The number one priority should be to maintain those protections as long as possible. How could any patent be allowed to lapse, even if there was limited commercial…

Saying pharma companies are just holders of ‘expensive, time-limited IP’ is not only wrong, it’s offensive to those of us who actually do the science. We spend years designing, testing, and validating drugs, not scheming to hike prices. We’re not all Shkrelis out here.

I was a bench scientist (proteomics) in pharma for over a decade. There is plenty of sweat and blood going into the pipeline, but a company is ultimately defined by the strength of its (patent) portfolio. Which is why a patent cliff drives their valuations.

Re: Novo Nordisk's Canadian Mistake

#144

Post by tredre3 »

chrisweekly wrote: post #133
vitorgrs wrote: post #31

In Brazil it will expire in July 2026. It's pretty relevant as it's kinda already announced they will put the generics on the public health care (SUS) for free... Which is big deal as an Ozempic shot costs almost the same as the minimum wage. This year they already did an analysis to include Ozempic, but it was denied, probably because of the cost difference... But they were trying on justice to extend the patent...

"same as the minimum wage" ... an hour's wage? a week? a month? annual?

From context it was clear to me that they meant the entire income.

Minimum wage in brazil is 280/month. I don't know how much of it would be taken by taxes, but even if it's 0 then ozempic in Brazil still costs almost 70% of that amount each month.

Re: Novo Nordisk's Canadian Mistake

#145

Post by tredre3 »

OutOfHere wrote: post #111
js2 wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> In most circumstances, it is illegal for individuals to import drugs or devices into the U.S. for personal use because these products purchased from other countries often have not been approved by the FDA for use and sale in the U.S. https://www.fda.gov/industry/import-basics/personal-importat...

There are a million laws on the books that not only are not enforced, but aren't even self consistent with each other. It is enforcement that determines what one actually can or can't do. The enforcement exists for controlled substances, for resale, and for a supply of over 90 days. For personal non-commercial use of a non-controlled medicine for under 90 days, the law is not enforced, and for good reason. People wou…

> There are a million laws on the books that not only are not enforced, but aren't even self consistent with each other. It is enforcement that determines what one actually can or can't do.

Okay but your statement was that there's "nothing illegal about it". You now agree that it's illegal, you're just unlikely to get caught. And if you are, you'll just lose that purchase and not face any legal consequences.

Re: Novo Nordisk's Canadian Mistake

#146

Post by dataflow »

ano-ther wrote: post #32
AnimalMuppet wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Um, what are the legality concerns? Is it illegal to bring medicine for your own use over the border? If not that, then what? (Honest question. I don't know.)

https://www.fda.gov/industry/import-basics/personal-importat...

This sounds like something the current SCOTUS should be more than happy to shoot down, no? If you're bringing medication for yourself from abroad that you obtained legally, why should the FDA's concerns for your own safety trump (no pun intended) your freedom?

Re: Novo Nordisk's Canadian Mistake

#147

Post by fragmede »

OptionOfT wrote: post #87
ReptileMan wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So cocaine from the south, ozempic from the north, fetanyl from the west and the meth is homegrown. So USA just need some powder from europe to close the circle.

That would be MDMA.

Wait, but where does Elon's ketamine come from?

Re: Novo Nordisk's Canadian Mistake

#148

Post by fragmede »

SoftTalker wrote: post #115
dghlsakjg wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That doesn't figure into the pricing strategy or giving away patent protection in Canada in 2018 as far as I can tell? Compounding isn't allowed in Canada, currently, so I assume you are talking about the US? Compounding Ozempic in the US wasn't a thing in 2018 when this patent was released in Canada, so not sure what one has to do with the other. What are you getting at in reference to the argument that the patent w…

Yes I’m in the USA. I just mentioned that because nobody I know is paying $800/mo. They are buying compounded injections online.

roughly how much are they paying, then?

Re: Novo Nordisk's Canadian Mistake

#149

Post by cperciva »

nijuashi wrote: post #131
0cf8612b2e1e wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I always wonder-in this case of such an epic company fuck up, does anyone ever get fired? Or is responsibility so diffuse that nobody is ultimately responsible? Pharma companies are really nothing more than holders of time-limited, expensive, exclusive IP. The number one priority should be to maintain those protections as long as possible. How could any patent be allowed to lapse, even if there was limited commercial…

Saying pharma companies are just holders of ‘expensive, time-limited IP’ is not only wrong, it’s offensive to those of us who actually do the science. We spend years designing, testing, and validating drugs, not scheming to hike prices. We’re not all Shkrelis out here.

I may be wrong, but aren't most drugs sold by large pharma companies actually developed elsewhere and then acquired?

Re: Novo Nordisk's Canadian Mistake

#150

Post by nl »

nextos wrote: post #67
bawolff wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Typically when people get fired for something like this they are just the scapegoat. A failure like this isn't just one dude forgetting, its a system failure where policies and checks failed. If it is solely up to one person that is a failure in and of itself.

Some people, including legal experts, claim it could have been intentional: https://www.legal.io/articles/5691258/Novo-Nordisk-Lets-Cana... . I was surprised Science didn't discuss this option. However, reader comments in Science do comment on this possibility. The idea is that letting the patent lapse would avoid getting regulated by the Patented Medicine Prices Review Board. I know several people working at NN, and…

I'm having trouble understanding the argument outlined in the legal.io link:

> Nordisk has rejected any suggestion that the loss of its Canadian semaglutide patent was a simple mistake. In a statement cited by Fortune, the company stressed that its intellectual property strategy is “carefully considered at a global level,” indicating intentionality rather than a blunder.

> Legal analysts believe the decision was deliberate. Steven Shape, IP Chair at Omnus Law, noted that the annual $250–$450 fee was negligible compared to the looming expiration of both data exclusivity and patent protection in January 2026. Shape argued the lapse was likely “a clear decision by Novo,” not an error.

> That interpretation is bolstered by the company’s simultaneous filing of a Certificate of Supplementary Protection (CSP) in Canada, suggesting Novo valued extended market exclusivity beyond the patent’s life. But because the underlying patent lapsed early, the CSP cannot take effect.

If the interpretation is bolstered by the company’s filing for CSP, but they were ineligible for CSP because they let the patent expire doesn't that imply it was an error?

I'd never heard of CSPs before, but https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supplementary_protection_certi... has some details. They seem to be a patent extension in all but name.

Post reply on HN