Category Archives: Drug Companies

With over 1.5 million drug and medical device related injuries each year, consumers are forced to take legal action. Find out if you have a lawsuit. Read news stories about dangerous medical devices and prescription drugs, health studies and pharmaceutical litigation.

Representing Heroin Possession cases and charges

Best Heroin Lawyers

Call Us @ 800-270-8184 or After Hours Cell 818-355-4076

Representing Heroin Possession cases and charges

If you have been charged with a Heroin Possession offense, you are facing serious charges and should hire a skilled Heroin Possession charge lawyer from Wise Laws, ASAP. Call today for a free legal consultation as when you have been arrested for a Heroin Possession crime, you might have many questions that need to be answered.

Charged With Heroin Possession

The crime of Heroin Possession an illegal controlled substance. The Possession of Heroin is punishable by both stated and federal laws. If a person is charged with Heroin possession, the courts will consider the amount of Heroin that you had in your hands, as the reason of Heroin possession, if you had intent to sell.

Tallahassee Heroin LawyersOrlando Heroin LawyersDallas Heroin LawyersFort Worth Heroin LawyersHonolulu Heroin LawyersBoise Heroin LawyersBismarck Heroin LawyersGrafton Heroin LawyersRaleigh Heroin LawyersDurham Heroin LawyersSanta Fe Heroin LawyersAlbuquerque Heroin LawyersAlbany Heroin LawyersPhoenix Heroin LawyersPeoria Heroin LawyersLas Vegas Heroin LawyersLouisville Heroin LawyersLittle Rock Heroin LawyersLos Angeles Heroin LawyersMiami Heroin LawyersDes Moines Heroin LawyersNew Haven Heroin LawyersIndianapolis Heroin LawyersDetroit Heroin LawyersJoplin Heroin LawyersBiloxi Heroin LawyersOklahoma City Heroin LawyersPortland Heroin LawyersSioux Falls Heroin LawyersNashville Heroin LawyersMemphis Heroin LawyersHouston Heroin LawyersTacoma Heroin LawyersMinneapolis Heroin LawyersProvo Heroin LawyersTulsa Heroin LawyersAnnapolis Heroin LawyersSacramento Heroin LawyersDenver Heroin LawyersCharlotte Heroin LawyersBoston Heroin LawyersOlympia Heroin LawyersAtlanta Heroin LawyersSanta Monica Heroin LawyersMalibu Heroin LawyersTucson Heroin LawyersScottsdale Heroin LawyersBeverly Hills Heroin LawyersBoca Raton Heroin Lawyers

Arrested Heroin Possession with Intent to Sell

Possessing a large amount of Heroin may result in a charge of Heroin possession with intent to sell. Even if the person possessing the Heroin has no intention of selling or distributing, they are many times charged with Heroin intent to sell anyway, due to the fact of a larger quantity other than societal norms of personal consumption.This is a very serious charge and carries with it harsh punishments if convicted. Having an attorney can help to reduce these Heroin charges to possession, if the right approach is taken, so call us today.

Heroin Distribution Charges

Heroin distributing is a situation in which a Heroin manufacturer sells illegal narcotics to a retailer or wholesaler, which then sell the Heroin to other groups or individuals. Any accusation of Heroin distributing or dispensing must be taken seriously, as the penalties associated with a heroin conviction are severe.

24 Hours 7 Days per week LOCAL Lawyer For Heroin

Merck’s patent win over Gilead reversed over false testimony

Merck & Co.’s $200 million jury verdict against Gilead Sciences Inc. was voided in a patent dispute over a breakthrough for hepatitis C because of misconduct by a witness at the companies’ trial.

A federal judge concluded Monday that dishonest and duplicitous testimony by a retired Merck scientist before and during a March trial played into the jury’s finding that the company was responsible for early discoveries that led to the development of Gilead’s Sovaldi and Harvoni medicines.

The scientist “intentionally fabricated testimony” and Merck supported his “bad faith conduct,” U.S. District Judge Beth Labson Freeman in San Jose, California, said in her ruling.

The reversal of the fifth-largest U.S. verdict this year vindicates Gilead in its refusal to share royalties with Merck on the more than $20 billion revenue the hepatitis C drugs generated from 2013 through 2015 in the U.S. The Foster City, California-based company’s sales have started to slow this year as competition for the liver disease market intensifies among drugmakers.

“This is a nice little bump for Gilead who’d already accounted for the $200 million,” said Bloomberg Intelligence analyst Asthika Goonewardene. “But of course, this is a big win and will be beneficial to Gilead and how they can claim ownership of the drug in the long run.”

Merck vowed to appeal Monday’s ruling, saying it “does not reflect the facts of the case.”

“In its decision, the jury recognized that patent protections are essential to the development of new medical treatments,” the company said in an email. “The compounds and methods at issue in this case facilitated significant advances in the treatment of patients with HCV infection, and achieving these advancements required many years of research and significant investment by Merck and its partners.”

Gilead said it “has always believed Merck’s patents are invalid and unenforceable.”

“We are pleased the court has ruled in Gilead’s favor and determined that Merck’s patents are unenforceable against Gilead, and therefore, Merck is not entitled to recover any damages,” the company said in an email.

Labson Freeman re-opened the case in April after Gilead alleged that ex-Merck scientist Phil Durette gave conflicting statements about his participation in a key phone call some 15 years earlier when the drug’s basic composition was first presented to Merck.

Durette initially said in a pretrial deposition he wasn’t on a phone call in which secrets about the compound’s basic chemistry were discussed while Merck was exploring a take-over of Pharmasset Inc., a company that was later acquired by Gilead. When testifying to the jury after checking his notes, Durette admitted to playing a role in the meeting.

“Dr. Durette’s lying at his deposition, recanting that testimony at trial without proper prior notice to Gilead, and further untruthful testimony at trial all support the court’s conclusion that Merck did intend to deceive Gilead and the court,” the judge wrote.

She said Merck’s actions were “even more egregious” because Durette was acting as the company’s patent attorney.

Merck’s victory at trial had set the stage for it to seek future royalty payments from Harvoni and Sovaldi, which sells for $1,000-a-pill in the U.S., before discounts and rebates.

While Gilead continues to dominate the market, the lull in its hepatitis C treatment revenue opened the door to Amgen Inc. retaking its place as the world’s top biotech firm by market capitalization.

The case is Gilead Sciences Inc. v. Merck & Co., 13-cv-04057, U.S. District Court, Northern District of California (San Jose).

Full Article – http://www.theindianalawyer.com/mercks-patent-win-over-gilead-reversed-over-false-testimony/PARAMS/article/40559

Drug Companies Subpoenaed Over Questionable Charity Connections

By

Whenever there is a report of a drug company jacking up the price of a prescription medication, the pharma industry is often quick to point out that there are non-profit charities ready and willing to help patients get these drugs at a more affordable rate. However, those charities may have very close ties to the drug maker that could not only help the company turn a profit, but avoid some tax obligations. In recent months, several large pharmaceutical companies have been subpoenaed as part of an ongoing federal investigation into these connections.

It works like this: Bob’s Drug Company acquires the rights to prescription drug Gleemonex and decides to jack up the price 500%, knowing that some people will not be able to afford the co-pay. However, it’s in the interest of Bob to keep as many patients using Gleemonex as possible, so it looks for ways to make the drug more affordable to those most in need: low-income patients on Medicare.

Now, Bob’s Drug Co. can’t directly fund the co-pay of a Medicare patient. That would effectively be Bob paying Bob, which is an illegal kickback under federal law. What Bob can do is call Sally’s Drug Charity, which will cover the Medicare co-pay on certain drugs.

So Bob makes a sizable donation, which Sally can then use to make Medicare co-pays, meaning patients continue using Gleemonex.

Thing is, while the Medicare patient isn’t having to go broke paying for Gleemonex, taxpayers might be. After all, the co-pay is usually only a fraction of the full amount that Medicare pays to the drug maker. Thus, Bob continues to get the full Medicare payment and enjoy the tax write-off from his donation to Sally’s charity.

Bloomberg BusinessWeek recently published an entire cover story on how the pharma industry uses these charities for their own financial, tax, and public-relations benefit. You should definitely check it out.

Today, Bloomberg published a story on the string of subpoenas issued to four high-profile pharma companies — Valeant, Gilead Sciencse, Biogen, and Jazz Pharmaceuticals — since last fall, mostly by federal prosecutors out of Massachusetts.

The nature of the subpoenas is vague, though they do reference investigations into the companies’ relationships with co-pay charties.

With Medicare on the hook for the balance of these prescription payments, the federal government is taking a particular interest in the possibility that drug makers have exerted too much influence over these charities as donations have grown.

Since 2010, donations to the seven biggest co-pay charities have more than doubled, reaching $1.1 billion in 2014.

Going back to the above fictional example: Under the law, Sally is not supposed to be swayed by Bob or other donors when it comes to which drugs it chooses to cover, which patients to accept, or how much of each drugs co-pay it will subsidize. So if Sally is covers co-pays for a competitor to Gleemonex, she can’t be swayed by Bob’s big bucks to give preferential treatment to his drug.

Recent reports indicate that some charities’ practices may have been motivated by donor money. For example, former employees at one charity told Bloomberg that when patients needed Jazz narcolepsy medication Xyrem, they were processed in a time manner, while patients seeking co-pay help for competing narcolepsy drugs were sometimes steered away or wait-listed if that other company wasn’t also donating to the charity.

The charities have denied allegations of favoritism of bad practices.

Sourced From –  https://consumerist.com/2016/05/27/drug-companies-subpoenaed-over-questionable-charity-connections/

Study: There’s no scientific basis for laws regulating marijuana and driving

WASHINGTON (AP) — Six states that allow marijuana use legal tests to determine driving while impaired by the drug that have no scientific basis, according to a study by the nation’s largest automobile club that calls for scrapping those laws.

The study commissioned by AAA’s safety foundation said it’s not possible to set a blood-test threshold for THC, the chemical in marijuana that makes people high, that can reliably determine impairment.

Yet the laws in five of the six states automatically presume a driver guilty if that person tests higher than the limit, and not guilty if it’s lower.

As a result, drivers who are unsafe may be going free while others may be wrongly convicted, the foundation said.

The foundation recommends replacing the laws with ones that rely on specially trained police officers to determine if a driver is impaired, backed up by a test for the presence of THC rather than a specific threshold. The officers are supposed to screen for dozens of indicators of drug use, from pupil dilation and tongue color to behavior.

The foundation’s recommendation to scrap the laws in Colorado, Montana, Nevada, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Washington comes as legislatures in several more states consider adopting similar laws.

At least three states, and possibly as many as eleven, will vote this fall on ballot measures to legalize marijuana for either recreational or medicinal use, or both. Several legislatures are also considering legalization bills.

“There is understandably a strong desire by both lawmakers and the public to create legal limits for marijuana impairment in the same manner we do alcohol,” said Marshall Doney, AAA’s president and CEO. “In the case of marijuana, this approach is flawed and not supported by scientific research.”

Determining whether someone is impaired by marijuana, as opposed to having simply used the drug at some time, is far more complex than the simple and reliable tests that have been developed for alcohol impairment.

There’s no science that shows drivers become impaired at a specific level of THC in the blood. A lot depends upon the individual. Drivers with relatively high levels of THC in their systems might not be impaired, especially if they are regular users, while others with relatively low levels may be unsafe behind the wheel.

Full Article – http://www.businessinsider.com/study-theres-no-scientific-basis-for-laws-regulating-marijuana-and-driving-2016-5