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.
Budget Impact Analysis of Biosimilar Natalizumab in the US
Projected savings from biosimilar natalizumab were $452,611 over 3 years, driven by decreased drug acquisition costs and a utilization shift from reference to biosimilar natalizumab.
Biosimilars in America: Overcoming Barriers and Maximizing Impact
July 21st 2024Join us as we explore the complexities of the US biosimilars market, discussing legislative influences, payer and provider adoption factors, and strategies to overcome industry challenges with expert insights from Kyle Noonan, PharmD, MS, value & access strategy manager at Cencora.
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.
Hesitancy in MENA Nations to Adopt WHO Biosimilar Guidelines Hinders Market Development
July 17th 2024The World Health Organization’s (WHO) new guidelines for biosimilar approvals aim to save time and money for manufacturers in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA), but hesitancy among nations to adopt the guidelines is stifling market development of biosimilars.
BioRationality: Time to Get Rid of PBMs if Biosimilars Are to Succeed
July 15th 2024Sarfaraz K. Niazi, PhD, discusses the challenges with pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) that plague the biosimilar industry and new legislation that attempts to reform their practices and encourage biosimilar adoption.