Antitrust claims are a product of federal statute, said the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, in reinstating a Walgreens and Kroger antitrust lawsuit against J&J over its branded infliximab, Remicade.
The US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit last week allowed 2 retail pharmacies to continue pursuing a lawsuit accusing Johnson & Johnson (J&J) of unlawfully restricting access to biosimilar infliximab while pressuring healthcare providers and payers to use its higher-priced originator product, Remicade.
The decision overturns a lower court ruling and reinstates a 2018 suit brought by Walgreens and Kroger, which alleges that J&J subsidiary Janssen “used its size and bargaining power in the broader pharmaceutical market to enter into exclusive contracts and anticompetitive bundling agreements with health insurers that suppressed generic competition to Remicade, which in turn allowed Janssen to sell Remicade at supracompetitive prices,” notes Friday’s decision.
At issue is whether the retailers have standing to accuse J&J of antitrust violations. Walgreens and Kroger had agreements with drug wholesalers, AmerisourceBergen and Cardinal Health, which in turn purchased Remicade from an affiliate of Janssen. The distribution agreement between the wholesalers and the Janssen unit contained a distribution agreement, governed by New Jersey law, barring the parties from assigning any rights or obligations under the agreement without written consent of the other party.
In 2018, the wholesalers reassigned the rights to the pharmacies, which later filed their suit.
Janssen made the argument that under New Jersey law, the anti-assignment provision prohibited the wholesalers from assigning its federal antitrust claims against Janssen to the pharmacies, depriving them of antitrust standing.
In March 2019, the District Court granted the motion for summary judgment and ruled in Janssen’s favor on all counts, saying that Janssen was a party to the distribution agreement with standing to enforce its term.
That’s not so, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals said.
“The antitrust claims are a product of federal statute and thus are extrinsic to, and not rights ‘under,’ a commercial agreement,” the court ruled, saying that antitrust claims are not granted by the terms of a contract.
It called J&J’s arguments in the case “unconvincing."
This case is one of several J&J is facing over Remicade, which was the sole infliximab on the market until 2016. Pfizer, which launched its biosimilar infliximab Inflectra that year, is pursuing its own antitrust suit against J&J. The FTC is also separately investigating the company over its conduct related to the drug.
Patient Perceptions of Switching From the Reference Adalimumab to Amjevita During its Initial Launch
April 20th 2024In a survey of patients with autoimmune arthritis who had been switched from reference adalimumab (Humira) to biosimilar adalimumab-atto (Amjevita; Amgen), most reported preferring the biosimilar and had no concerns about switching.
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.
Biosimilars Rheumatology Roundup for February 2024—Podcast Edition
March 3rd 2024On this episode of Not So Different, The Center for Biosimilars® revisited all the major rheumatology biosimilar news from February 2024, including the FDA approval of the 10th adalimumab biosimilar, the promise for an oral delivery system for ustekinumab, and the impact of adalimumab products on COVID-19 antibodies.
Biosimilars Council: PBM Rebate Schemes Cost Americans, Payers $6 Billion
April 10th 2024A report from the Biosimilars Council evaluating IQVIA data found that rebate schemes orchestrated by pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) are costing US patients and payers billions of dollars by suppressing biosimilar adoption.