Lawsuit against Celgene, BMS and others moves forward
New Jersey judge denies motion to stay antitrust action regarding blockbuster cancer drug | Defendants had argued litigation would be unnecessary and costly.
A US federal magistrate judge at a New Jersey district court has denied a motion to stay proceedings in an antitrust suit in which Celgene, Bristol Myers-Squibb, Natco Pharma and Teva are accused of anti-competitive practices over cancer drug Revlimid (lenalidomide).
Judge Michael Hammer delivered his decision on Friday, April 21.
In doing so, he denied the defendants’ requests to stay discovery pending adjudication of any motion to dismiss, concluding that they had not satisfied their burden of showing there was a good cause to do so.
Celgene et al had argued that absent a stay, the defendants “might be required to engage in needless, burdensome, and expensive litigation”. However, plaintiffs Walgreen and Kroger Specialty Pharmacy countered that the stay was not warranted because discovery had been ongoing in the earliest consolidated actions, and halting it now would result in duplicative and inefficient discovery.
The case is a complex civil antitrust action involving an alleged scheme initiated by Celgene and BMS, and then Natco and Teva. The plaintiffs claim that the firms colluded to block generic competition to Revlimid, maintaining a monopoly over it and increasing prices.
‘Overcharges’
Among the allegations in the suit, Walgreen and Kroger say that they and other buyers were deprived of any generic version of Revlimid from at least 2019 through March 2022, were forced to pay artificially high generic prices and faced limited supplies of the drug.
This, they say, was because the defendants executed “an anticompetitive reverse payment settlement agreement” in which they joined forces to suppress and delay generic competition to Revlimid.
Antitrust ‘tactics’
Revlimid, which is used to treat certain types of cancer including multiple myeloma and lymphoma, is one of the ten highest-grossing drugs worldwide, according to the suit.
In the original complaint, the plaintiffs say that since 2014, Celgene has sold nearly $47 billion worth of the medication in the US. They claim that by 2020, a monthly course of the drug cost $16,023—more than triple the price since its launch.
These anti-competitive tactics had “caused the plaintiffs to pay overcharges on their purchases of Revlimid and generic Revlimid”, the firms claim. They are seeking treble damages and permanent injunctive relief.
Judge Hammer noted that staying discovery until the defendants’ motions to dismiss is decided may prejudice the plaintiffs by forcing them to wait an indefinite period to pursue their claims, some of which are more than four years old.
Did you enjoy reading this story? Sign up to our free daily newsletters and get stories sent like this straight to your inbox.