Generic vs. Brand Name Prescription Drugs

Hiring a lawyer is the first step towards recovering a better quality of life. At Osborne & Francis, we devote our undivided attention to each client, and all communications are held in the strictest privacy. Contact us by filling out the form or calling us directly at (561) 293-2600.

By Pierce | Skrabanek
Published on:
June 16, 2014
Updated on:
April 7, 2024
Best Law Firm logo
Best Law Firm logo

Oftentimes, we receive questions from our clients about generic vs. brand name drugs and the approval process associated with both. When a pharmaceutical company first approves and markets a drug, it is done so under a patent that provides the pharmaceutical company that developed the drug to sell it. There are only a few narrow exceptions in which a generic drug can be produced at the same time as brand drugs, such as if the developing pharmaceutical company’s patents are unenforceable or cannot be infringed.

The primary purpose for allowing the developing company to hold the patent on this drug before generics can begin producing the drug is to allow the developing company to regain the cost of testing, developing, approving and producing the drug.  A generic company can begin producing the drug when the patent has expired. The generics can then manufacture the drug without concerns regarding the costs of approving, testing and developing that the brand pharmaceutical incurred.

The generic approval process is governed by the “Hatch-Waxman Act”, otherwise known as the U.S. Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act. The Act was meant to expedite the availability of generic drugs by allowing the FDA to approve applications to market generic versions of brand-name drugs without incurring the costs of testing and developing the drug. The Act requires that a generic drug company file an Abbreviated New Drug Application (“ANDA”) with the Food and Drug Administration, in particular, the Office of Generic Drugs.  Within the ANDA, the generic drug applicant must demonstrate that their product is bioequivalent (i.e. that the generic drug will perform or react within a patient’s blood stream in the same way as the brand drug). Once the ANDA is approved, the FDA adds the drug to its approved Drug Products list, also known as the “Orange Book.”

An example of a drug that has undergone the above process is the brand name drug Reglan, manufactured by Schwarz Pharma and its generic form, Metoclopramide. Metoclopramide was first developed in the 1960s. In 1979, Metoclopramide was approved in injection form. One year later, in 1980, Metoclopramide in tablet form was approved by the FDA for symptomatic gastroesophageal reflux and diabetic gastroparesis. The recommended dose is 5 to 20 mg four times daily and was approved for short-term use not to exceed 12 weeks (4-12 weeks). Currently, Metoclopramide is manufactured by a large number of generic manufacturers, including, Alaven Pharmaceuticals, Teva Pharmaceuticals, Pliva, Inc., Actavis Inc., Barr pharmaceuticals, Purepac Pharmaceuticals, Ranbaxy Pharmaceuticals, Qualitest Pharmaceuticals and Mutual Pharmaceuticals.   Recently published analyses suggest that metoclopramide is the most common cause of drug-induced movement disorders such as tardive dyskinesia. Another analysis of study data by the FDA showed that about 20 percent of patients in that study who used metoclopramide took it for longer than three months. These studies prompted the FDA to issue a black box warning in February 2009 regarding the increased risks of tardive dyskinesia associated with Reglan or Metoclopramide exposure longer than 12 weeks.

Ready For Your Free Consultation?

What Our Clients Are Saying About Us

“If you're looking for a great firm, then look no further!”

“Everyone at Pierce Skrabanek was so helpful to our case. They worked fast and efficiently and kept us notified of the status of our case. They helped us a lot and made sure we understood what was happening and why. If you're looking for a great firm, then look no further! I can't recommend them enough. They truly changed our lives. Five Stars on all accounts!”

Samantha S.

“I greatly appreciate all of their help!”

Mr. Skrabanek and his team are all very diligent, thorough, and hard-working. For my first time ever needing a lawyer, I had a great experience. They walked me through the process and answered all of my questions along the way and in a timely manner. I greatly appreciate all of their help!”

Tori P.

“I’m very pleased with my results.”

“They took care of me from start to finish! I’m very pleased with my results. I will 100% recommend it to my friend's family or just another person who needs good help in a bad situation. Thank you to Paul and the whole team!”

Jon J.

“Pierce Skrabanek represented me in a very high-profile wrongful death case.”

“Pierce Skrabanek represented me in a very high-profile wrongful death case. Whenever I felt uninformed or just needed reassurance, Paul had no problems getting on the phone with me to clear up any questions I had.

This firm was very professional through the entire process.”

Jeremy S.

“Pierce Skrabanek was polite, professional, and direct at all times.”

“When I needed help, they were there. I reached out to over 5 other firms, but all declined to assist. Pierce Skrabanek was polite, professional, and direct at all times. Just awesome”

Al B.

“This law firm treats you as family.”

“Every person I came in communication with was a great person. This law firm treats you as family and will do anything to get the best for you.”

Andres T.