Drug maker Shire has filed suit in a federal court in Newark, New Jersey, alleging that rival Allergan has violated antitrust laws in trying to preserve market share of its cyclosporine ophthalmic emulsion (Restasis) by blocking competition from Shire’s dry-eye drug, lifitegrast (Xiidra), on the Medicare Part D formulary.
Drug maker Shire has filed suit in a federal court in Newark, New Jersey, alleging that rival Allergan has violated antitrust laws in trying to preserve market share of its cyclosporine ophthalmic emulsion (Restasis) by blocking competition from Shire’s dry-eye drug, lifitegrast (Xiidra), on the Medicare Part D formulary.
The complaint alleges that Allergan “has and will continue to use bundled discounts, exclusive dealing, coercion and interference to unlawfully 'block' Shire from competing with it, and to maintain its monopoly in the [Medicare] Part D market at all costs.” Shire says that it will lose millions in sales if the court does not intervene to stop Allergan from engaging in contracting practices that keep Xiidra from gaining a placement on the formulary.
The suit is not the only challenge facing Allergan with respect to Restasis; the Ireland-based drug developer has drawn ire for transferring its Restasis patents to the Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe in exchange for a bulk payment of $13.75 million and an additional $15 million per year in royalties. In return for those payments, the Tribe has invoked sovereign immunity from ongoing inter partes reviews (IPRs) of several patents covering the drug.
The unusual legal maneuver has not escaped congressional attention; in a September 27 letter to the Senate’s Committee on the Judiciary, 4 US senators, Margaret Wood Hassan (D-New Hampshire), Robert Casey, Jr (D-Pennsylvania), Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio), and Richard Blumenthal (D-Connecticut) said that they were “Deeply concerned with the numerous patent law and anti-competitive implications of Allergan’s deal, which harm patients’ ability to afford medications.” The senators urged the committee to launch an immediate investigation, saying that sovereign immunity is a fundamental precept of the American legal structure, and that private companies should not be allowed to pay sovereign entities to invoke such rights as a way to “exploit sovereign immunity at the expense of patients.”
A fifth senator, Claire McCaskill (D-Missouri), added her voice to the controversy, calling on Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America to involve itself in the issue by “telling its members that this action isn’t appropriate.”
The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) has previously granted motions to dismiss IPRs on the basis of sovereign immunity in the cases of patents owned by public universities. Because states are treated as sovereign entities under the US Constitution, some public universities have successfully argued that they are agents of the state and therefore immune from IPR proceedings under the PTAB’s authority. However, in the cases of the public universities, the letter to the Judiciary Committee points out, the universities were the owners of the original patents, not third parties paid to invoke sovereign immunity.
Allergan responded to the senators’ letter with a message of its own; Allergan’s CEO, Brent Saunders, sent an October 3 letter to the Judiciary Committee urging a review of what he termed a “broken and flawed” IPR process. IPRs, he says, undermine the traditional patent challenge process created in the 1984 Hatch-Waxman Act and place an “unnecessary and unfair burden” on drug makers.
Julie Reed: Why 2024 Is Important for Biosimilars
April 17th 2024Julie Reed, executive director of the Biosimilars Forum, showcases how the biosimilar industry is expected to develop throughout 2024, including major policy changes and hope for continued improvement in market share for adalimumab biosimilars.
Exploring the Biosimilar Horizon: Julie Reed's Predictions for 2024
February 18th 2024On this episode of Not So Different, Julie Reed, executive director of the Biosimilars Forum, returns to discuss her predictions for the biosimilar industry for 2024 and beyond as well as the impact that the Forum's 4 new members will have on the organization's mission.
BioRationality: Removing the Misconceptions Surrounding Interchangeability
April 15th 2024Sarfaraz K. Niazi, PhD, outlines the current state of interchangeable biosimilars in the US and policy changes needed to clear up misconceptions surrounding the meaning behind interchangeability designations.
A New Chapter: How 2023 Will Shape the US Biosimilar Space for 2024 and Beyond
December 31st 2023On this episode of Not So Different, Cencora's Brian Biehn and Corey Ford take a look back at major policy and regulatory advancements in 2023 and how these changes will alter the space going forward.
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.
Rising Biosimilar Adoption for an Italian Payer Will Benefit National Health Care System, Patients
April 9th 2024Data from 2021 and 2022 indicates increasing biosimilar use in an Italian health care company, with potential for full adoption in the future, benefiting both the National Health System and citizens through efficient and sustainable health care policies.