A pharmacy company lost its year-long legal battle against medicine supply restrictions when the court of appeal threw out its case for being "evidentially unsupported" last week.    

A judge rejected Chemistree's claims that manufacturer AbbVie was breaching competition law by refusing to fulfil all of its medicine orders for an HIV drug, at a hearing on Thursday (November 7).   

Chemistree, which owns pharmacies in London and runs an HIV treatment home delivery service, will be challenging the ruling, its legal representatives Matthew Arnold and Baldwin told C+D.

Lord Justice Rimer agreed  Kaletra was a "must-have" product, but said there was no legal fault in AbbVie's distribution policies	More on supply restrictions Pharmacy challenge takes on ‘anti-competitive' drug quotas in court Pharmacists oppose manufacturers' stock audits Contractor faces Pfizer audit to get medicines
	The judgement followed a hearing last month (October 8) at which the court was told that the manufacturer had refused to supply more than 1,300 packs of Kaletra to Chemistree in December last year.

The pharmacy company said it needed 15 per cent of its supply for UK prescriptions and the rest for wholesale trade and EU prescriptions.

The manufacturer argued that it did not supply Kaletra to any UK wholesalers because it was a hospital-only drug. An order submitted by Chemistree for 1,249 packs in November had resulted in a UK shortage, the court heard.   

However the pharmacy company argued that AbbVie was dominating its position in the market because it was the sole UK supplier of Kaletra. It had left Chemistree unable to supply the "must-have" drug to patients within the EU, it said.    

Lord Justice Rimer agreed that Kaletra was a "must-have" product, but he said the case was based on "evidentially unsupported theory" and backed a high court ruling in February that there was no legal fault in AbbVie's distribution policies.   

Ted Mercer, partner at Matthew Arnold and Baldwin, told C+D in September that the case could prove to be a "wake-up" call for manufacturers and wholesalers if Chemistree won the case.

On Thursday he said he was disappointed with the judgement but that Chemistree saw the fight against supply restrictions "as being part of the long-term battle for customers".  

"The other side should assume we are going to appeal," he added. Chemistree will seek permission from the court of appeal to challenge the judgement. If this is denied it will have 21 days to make representations to the Supreme Court to hear the case.

Chemistree took manufacturers Teva and Roche to court in 2011 for refusal to supply patented drugs but lost the case.

Do you agree with the judgement?

Comment below or email us at [email protected] You can also find C+D on Twitter, LinkedIn and Facebook