The 151-page complaint accuses BMS and its subsidiary Celgene of patent fraud by misrepresenting and concealing publicly available data about Pomalyst.
In a recent legal development, Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Louisiana has filed a class-action lawsuit against Bristol Myers Squibb (BMS), alleging the pharmaceutical company of extending market exclusivity for its multiple myeloma drug, Pomalyst, through unlawful means. The lawsuit could have significant implications for healthcare providers and patients who have been paying for the drug.
HCN Medical Memo
This lawsuit underscores the complexities and potential pitfalls of drug pricing and market exclusivity. If the allegations are proven true, healthcare providers and their patients could see a significant financial burden alleviated, with the possibility of more affordable generic options becoming available. It’s crucial to stay updated on this case as it may influence drug acquisition costs and treatment options for multiple myeloma patients.
- The lawsuit is filed by Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Louisiana and its subsidiary HMO Louisiana, representing a proposed class of entities that paid for Pomalyst since October 2020.
- The pharma companies are also alleged to have launched “sham lawsuits” against generics companies like Teva, Aurobindo, Eugia, and Natco, to prevent them from entering the US market.
- The plaintiffs claim that these actions have led to overpayments by hundreds of millions, if not billions, of dollars for Pomalyst.
“While the form of the payment is cloaked under an effort at absolute secrecy, each of the reverse payment agreements include a payment well into nine figures, and each vastly exceeds the net revenues any one of the generic companies could hope to earn even if it had prevailed in the patent litigation.”
– The Complaint
- Pomalyst is an immunomodulatory antineoplastic agent that was first approved by the FDA in February 2013.
- In 2022, Pomalyst secured nearly $3.5 billion in revenues, showing a 5% increase from its 2021 sales.
- The plaintiffs are seeking monetary recompense and injunctive relief, alleging that the companies’ violations are ongoing.
More Legal Matters