Biogen Idec Announces Conclusion of Arbitration with Genentech
News Jun 17, 2009
Biogen Idec has announced that an arbitration panel has issued its decision concerning the Company’s collaboration agreement with Genentech, Inc., reaffirming Biogen Idec’s contractual right to fully participate in strategic decisions regarding the development of RITUXAN® (rituximab) and other anti-CD20 antibodies subject to the collaboration.
Specifically, the arbitration panel ruled that a Joint Development Committee (JDC) comprised of three members from each company must unanimously approve a development plan for each specific indication.
Based on that finding, the panel also ruled that, absent unanimous approval of the JDC, Genentech may not proceed with further development of 2H7v16 in neuromyelitis optica, 2H7v16 in relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS), or 2H7v114 for oncology. Genentech may continue clinical trials for 2H7 in rheumatoid arthritis and lupus.
“We are pleased the arbitration panel upheld our reading of the contract and affirmed our joint decision-making rights,” said James C. Mullen, Biogen Idec’s President and CEO. “Our partnership with Genentech has been extraordinarily successful, and we look forward to continuing to work with them to help patients in a wide range of diseases.”
The arbitration panel rejected Genentech’s assertion that the November 2003 merger of IDEC Pharmaceuticals Corp. and Biogen Inc. constituted a change of control.
Biogen Idec co-promotes RITUXAN, a treatment for certain B-cell non-Hodgkin’s lymphomas and rheumatoid arthritis, with Genentech in the United States. Biogen Idec entered into the collaboration with Genentech in March 1995. Biogen Idec filed its Demand for Arbitration in June 2006.
China is poised to introduce a new regulation on gene editing in humans. A draft of the country’s new civil code lists human genes and embryos in a section on personality rights to be protected. Experiments on genes in adults or embryos that endanger human health or violate ethical norms can accordingly be seen as a violation of a person’s fundamental rights.READ MORE