Explore BrainMass

How and why the patent status of Prozac affected advertising to consumers vs physicians

Eli Lily holds the patent to Prozac. !n 1996, Barr Laboratories challeneged Lili's patent. In 1999 U.S District Judge Barker held in favor of Liliy. Lily reduced its expenditure on direct-to-consumer advertising that same year on Prozac from 37.5million to just 151,000, while raising the expenditure on detailing to physicians from 49.9million to 60.2 million, and raised advertising in medical journals from 7.9 million to 8.1 million. The U.S. court of appeals overturned the patent and generic competition was expected to begin in 2001.

A: Was Lili's decision to redirect promotion spending away from consumers to doctors consistent with Judge Barker's decision. Please explain.
B: Following the intoduction of generic drugs, how should Lily adjust to the price of Prozac? Please explain.
C: Following the introduction of generic drugs, how should Lily adjust to the promotion of Prozac? Please explain.

Solution Preview

When Lily believed that with its patent secure, there was little reason to worry about competition. It focused its attention instead on physicians, since they would be the ones who would be convincing patients that they needed antidepressants. Once the patients was using Prozac, Lily had little reason to fear that they would develop and ...