Posts tagged ‘US Supreme Court’
April 28th, 2011
It is always a pleasure to be recognized by others. Pieter Droppert’s writing on Biotech Strategy Blog was recently quoted by the Los Angeles Times, alongside Pharmalot’s Ed Silverman, in a story about the Sorrell v. IMS Health case heard by the United States Supreme Court earlier this week.
Pieter is a 2005 graduate of Rutgers School of Law-Newark and recalls that the constitutional theory class he did was one of the most demanding! His post on Biotech Strategy Blog earlier this year, “US Supreme Court to decide whether Vermont can control the use of prescribing data by IMS Health and Pharma companies” was also linked to by the Cornell University Law School Legal Information Institute.
The attempt by the State of Vermont to regulate the use of pharmacy prescribing data and restrict its use for pharmaceutical marketing and sales is something that Pieter has followed on Biotech Strategy Blog. Earlier this week he wrote a preview on the Supreme Court oral argument in Sorrell v. IMS Health and what he thought the Justices would focus on.
His analysis of Tuesday’s oral argument that focused on First Amendment rights and commercial free speech, is that Vermont appear unlikely to prevail and that the law restricting access by data mining companies such as IMS Health will not be upheld.
This is good news for the U.S. pharmaceutical industry that is facing increasing challenges in obtaining access to physicians for sales and marketing.
March 24th, 2011
Icarus Consultants is a marketing strategy consulting company to biotechnology, pharmaceutical and life science companies. We don’t offer marketing communications services.
However, we like to keep our finger on the pulse of the market, so read with interest the recent United States Supreme Court decision in Matrixx Initiatives, Inc. v. Siracusano that involved a failure of Matrixx to share adverse event information with investors.
You may recall the issue of loss of smell associated with use of Zicam Cold Remedy Nasal Gel that contained zinc sulfate.
Matrixx argued that only statistically significant adverse events are material and need to be disclosed to investors, a position the Supreme Court disagreed with. In general terms, the Court held that adverse events that may be linked to a product that could impact a reasonable investor’s decision making need to be disclosed.
What’s the impact of this decision? The Matrixx decision will require companies and their PR agencies to think carefully about the need to include negative information as well as positive when making press releases. Clinical teams will need to talk to investor relations and marketing, something that may be a challenge in the silos of big pharma.
You can read more about this case, and a more in-depth analysis of Justice Sotomayor’s Supreme Court opinion on Biotech Strategy Blog.