The district court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania has denied Johnson & Johnson’s motion to dismiss an antitrust civil action brought by Pfizer over infliximab.
The district court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania has denied Johnson & Johnson’s (J&J) motion to dismiss an antitrust civil action brought by Pfizer over infliximab. The suit, filed in September 2017, alleges that Johnson & Johnson engaged in exclusionary contracts, bundled rebates, and multi-product bundling practices related to its originator infliximab (Remicade) that have effectively denied patients access to biosimilar therapies (including Pfizer’s Inflectra) and have undermined price competition in the biologics marketplace.
Read more about Pfizer’s suit against J&J.
In a copy of the court’s August 8, 2018, memorandum obtained by The Center for Biosimilars®, Judge J. Joyner writes that “Pfizer’s Complaint sufficiently alleges that it has suffered an antitrust injury as the result of J&J’s anticompetitive conduct. J&J’s efforts to foreclose Pfizer from the market, as Pfizer has alleged, have led to increased prices for consumers and limited competitive options for end payors, providers, and patients.”
The memorandum goes on to state that, while J&J’s claim that Pfizer’s Inflectra has not adequately competed with Remicade (due to factors including its lack of interchangeability) may ultimately prove true after the discovery process, the claim is not itself grounds for dismissing the complaint.
Finally, the court said Pfizer’s claims that it has priced Inflectra below Remicade, even accounting for incentives like bundled discounts and rebates, plausible, and “Discovery will reveal whether Pfizer has offered more competitive pricing for Inflectra, as alleged in its Complaint.”
In a statement to The Center for Biosimilars®, a representative of Pfizer said that the Inflectra maker "...is pleased that the court denied [J&J] motion, and this case can now move forward. The court ruled that Pfizer’s complaint sufficiently alleged that J&J’s scheme of exclusionary contracts has unlawfully denied patients access to important treatment options.”
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.