Bristol Myers accused of illegal tactics to keep Pomalyst monopoly in lawsuit

Natco Pharma

06/09/2023 19:12

By Brendan Pierson
       Sept 6 (Reuters) - Bristol Myers Squibb  BMY.N  has been
accused in a new lawsuit of using fraudulent patents and other
illegal tactics to maintain its monopoly on blockbuster blood
cancer drug Pomalyst for years after it should have faced
generic competition.
    In a complaint filed on Tuesday in Manhattan federal court,
Blue Cross Blue Shield of Louisiana said the company violated
U.S. antitrust law and had caused purchasers of the drug to
overpay "by many hundreds of millions, if not billions, of
dollars."
    The health insurer brought the claim on behalf of a proposed
nationwide class of entities that paid for Pomalyst since
October 2020, when it claimed generic versions of the multiple
myeloma treatment would have launched if not for the illegal
scheme.   
    It is seeking three times the amount of the alleged
overcharge, which is permitted under the federal Sherman Act
antitrust law.
    A spokesperson for Bristol Myers did not immediately respond
to a request for comment.
    Pomalyst is a top seller for Bristol Myers, bringing in
nearly $3.5 billion out of $46.16 billion of its total revenue
last year. The company in July forecast sales of the drug to
fall this year, however, as more patients receive it for free
through a patient assistance program.
    The drug was developed by Celgene, a company acquired by
Bristol Myers in 2019. Tuesday's lawsuit claims that Celgene
fraudulently obtained multiple patents on it based on
information that was already in the public domain, a fact it
concealed from the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office while it was
applying for the patents.
    The company then used those patents to file "sham lawsuits"
against generic drugmakers to prevent them from launching their
own versions of Pomalyst, the lawsuit said.
    Bristol Myers eventually reached settlements with several
generic companies including Teva Pharmaceutical Industries
 TEVA.TA , Aurobindo Pharma  ARBN.NS , Breckeridge
Pharmaceutical and Natco Pharma  NATP.N  under which they agreed
delay the launch of generics until 2026. 
    Blue Cross Blue Shield of Louisiana said that while the
exact terms of the agreements were "cloaked under an effort at
absolute secrecy," the economic incentives for the companies
suggest they must have been "large, unjustified" payments in
exchange for not launching generics, which can be illegal.
    The generic companies, which are also named as defendants in
the lawsuit, did not immediately respond to requests for
comment.

 (Reporting By Brendan Pierson in New York, Editing by Alexia
Garamfalvi and Bill Berkrot)
 ((Brendan.Pierson@thomsonreuters.com; 332-219-1345 (desk);
646-306-0235 (cell);))