A class action lawsuit has been filed by United Food and Commercial Workers Local 1500 (UFCW Local 1500) against AbbVie for alleged use of a patent thicket to maintain a monopoly for its brand-name adalimumab, Humira. The complaint also alleges that AbbVie and a number of its biosimilar competitors colluded to divide the market for adalimumab between Europe and the United States.
A class action lawsuit has been filed by United Food and Commercial Workers Local 1500 (UFCW Local 1500) against AbbVie for alleged use of a patent thicket to maintain a monopoly for its brand-name adalimumab, Humira. The complaint also alleges that AbbVie and a number of its biosimilar competitors colluded to divide the market for adalimumab between Europe and the United States.
The lawsuit, brought on behalf of UFCW Local 1500, the largest grocery-worker union in New York State, and filed in the US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, claims that UFCW Local 1500’s membership and others who are similarly situated paid artificially high prices for brand-name Humira, and that they were deprived of the benefits of early, robust competition from biosimilars as a result of wrongful conduct.
The complaint alleges that AbbVie’s patent estate for Humira is “designed solely to insulate Humira from any biosimilar competition in the US for years to come,” and that the company secured patents, many of them overlapping and noninventive, in advance of the expiry of its primary patent in 2016 as a means by which to ensure that protracted litigation would prevent a US biosimilar launch.
The suit also alleges that AbbVie entered into illegal market-division agreements with biosimilar developers Amgen, Samsung Bioepis, Mylan, Sandoz, Fresenius Kabi, Pfizer, and Momenta, all of whom are named as codefendants in the suit. Each of the biosimilar developers named has entered into its own settlement with AbbVie that does not allow for US marketing of a biosimilar adalimumab product prior to 2023, though the biosimilar developers’ products were eligible to be launched as early as October 2018 in the European market. According to the suit, “AbbVie has cooked up a monopoly scheme that has US patients paying higher monopoly prices while patients in Europe benefit from competition.”
Gregory Asciolla, cochair of the antitrust and competition litigation practice at Labaton Sucharow, which is representing UFCW Local 1500 in the suit, said in a statement that “AbbVie has used its patents as leverage with the other drug manufacturers to delay their entry into the US market. With this lawsuit, AbbVie will have to open the doors to competition and compensate those who have paid exorbitant prices for their medication. AbbVie’s unlawful scheme to keep out biosimilar competition has cost the healthcare system billions of dollars.”
In an email to The Center for Biosimilars®, a representative of Pfizer said the company "stands by the lawfulness of its patent settlement with AbbVie, which will allow Pfizer’s lower cost alternative adalimumab biosimilar to enter well before expiration of the patents AbbVie asserted against Pfizer, thereby offering patients expanded access sooner. We believe the lawsuit is without merit and that there are multiple grounds supporting dismissal of the plaintiffs' claims."
The lawsuit’s filing comes amid renewed questions about AbbVie’s use of its patents in the US context. In a February 2019 hearing before the US Senate Committee on Finance, AbbVie’s chief executive officer, Richard Gonzalez, faced questions from lawmakers about AbbVie’s intellectual property strategy related to Humira, and responded that AbbVie’s portfolio of patents evolved as the company discovered Humira’s applications in various disease states. Given its broad range of therapeutic applications, “Humira is like 9 different drugs,” he said.
Gonzalez also called the settlements struck with biosimilar developers a “reasonable balance” that will allow for market entry after patents on adalimumab expire. “We don’t block any biosimilars…. We’ve given license to every biosimilar player but 1,” Gonzalez told senators.
Challenges and Guidance in Biosimilar Assessment: An ISPOR Report on HTA Agency Approaches
May 14th 2024The ISPOR report highlights the urgent need for clear guidance on when and how to conduct health technology assessments (HTAs) for biosimilars, emphasizing the challenges faced by HTA agencies and the evolving role of HTAs in evaluating biosimilar value.
Biosimilars Policy Roundup for April 2024—Podcast Edition
May 5th 2024On this episode of Not So Different, The Center for Biosimilars® glances back at all the major biosimilar policy updates from April, including 2 FDA approvals, 1 European approval, and several insights into possible policy changes from the Festival of Biologics USA conference.
Cordavis Report Outlines Strategies for Biosimilar Development, Access in the US Health Care Market
May 8th 2024Cordavis, a CVS Healthspire company, released a report detailing the current hurdles faced in developing and commercializing biosimilars in the US and highlighting efforts by the organization to enhance access and affordability for these products.
Decoding the Patent Puzzle: Navigating the Legal Landscape of Biosimilars
March 17th 2024On this episode of Not So Different, Ha Kung Wong, JD, an intellectual patent attorney and partner at Venable LLP, details the confusing landscape that is the US patent system and how it can be improved to help companies overcome barriers to biosimilar competition.
Cencora Analysis Shows Differences in Payer Coverage Between G-CSF Biosimilars
May 2nd 2024Data from a Cencora study showed some misalignment in payer coverage of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) biosimilars, highlighting that while filgrastim biosimilars are often favored over the originator, reference pegfilgrastim still dominates over its biosimilars.