kayak_wench
14時間前
I read several articles and can easily see that the Sacklers can't sell opioids but its not clear about Purdue.
I asked ChatGPT and it was a bit evasive but I cornered it and asked explicitly whether the most recent settlement news allows Purdue to sell opioids. This was its reply. It does seem to think Purdue can't market or lobby for opioids, I wonder if 'lobby' means actively fight patent cases.
Yes, it seems unclear whether Purdue Pharma, under its new structure, will continue to sell opioids. The settlement prohibits the Sacklers from involvement in opioid sales, but Purdue itself will be restructured under a new board of trustees chosen by states and creditors. The company will not be allowed to market or lobby for opioids, but its exact future role in opioid production or distribution has not been definitively stated. The final decision on whether Purdue will sell opioids will likely depend on how the new board decides to run the company within the constraints of the settlement.
I asked it then if "Could challenging generic companies in court be viewed as 'marketing or lobbying' for Oxy?"
While the settlement prohibits Purdue Pharma from marketing or lobbying for opioids, legal challenges against generic competitors fall into a different category—intellectual property (IP) enforcement. Courts generally view patent litigation as a business strategy rather than traditional marketing or lobbying.
However, one could argue that aggressively litigating against generic manufacturers serves a similar function as lobbying: it extends Purdue’s market exclusivity and keeps OxyContin a dominant product. If Purdue were to continue such legal challenges post-settlement, it might raise questions about whether the company is indirectly promoting OxyContin’s market presence in violation of the settlement's intent.
Ultimately, whether this falls under "marketing or lobbying" would depend on how the settlement terms are enforced and interpreted by regulators or the courts. If the new Purdue board prioritizes compliance with the settlement’s spirit, they may avoid such litigation to steer clear of potential violations.