Legal ForumExample Category: LSK Kajiado ForumCigna Files Antitrust Lawsuit Aga …Post Reply

Post Reply: Cigna Files Antitrust Lawsuit Against Bristol Myers Squibb Over Alleged Pomalyst Monopoly -RT

<blockquote><div class="quotetitle">Quote from <a class="profile-link highlight-moderator" href="https://lawguide.co.ke/understanding-law/legal-forum/profile/lawyer/">Lawyer</a> on June 27, 2025, 9:05 am</div><div id="pl-6650"  class="panel-layout" ><div id="pg-6650-0"  class="panel-grid panel-no-style" ><div id="pgc-6650-0-0"  class="panel-grid-cell"  data-weight="1" ><div id="panel-6650-0-0-0" class="so-panel widget widget_sow-editor panel-first-child panel-last-child" data-index="0" data-style="{&quot;background_image_attachment&quot;:false,&quot;background_display&quot;:&quot;tile&quot;,&quot;background_image_size&quot;:&quot;full&quot;,&quot;background_image_opacity&quot;:&quot;100&quot;,&quot;border_thickness&quot;:&quot;1px&quot;}" ><div
			
			class="so-widget-sow-editor so-widget-sow-editor-base"
			
		>
<div class="siteorigin-widget-tinymce textwidget">
	<p dir="ltr" data-pm-slice="0 0 []">Cigna, one of the world's leading health insurance providers, has filed a federal lawsuit against pharmaceutical giant Bristol Myers Squibb, accusing the company of violating U.S. antitrust laws to maintain an illegal monopoly on its blockbuster blood cancer drug, Pomalyst. The 203-page complaint, lodged in Manhattan federal court on June 24, 2025, alleges that Bristol Myers Squibb, through its subsidiary Celgene, engaged in a series of anticompetitive tactics to delay the market entry of generic versions of Pomalyst, resulting in substantial overcharges for purchasers, including Cigna, amounting to hundreds of millions, if not billions, of dollars.</p>
<p dir="ltr">Pomalyst, known chemically as pomalidomide, is a critical treatment for multiple myeloma, a type of blood cancer that affects plasma cells in the bone marrow. Approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in 2013, the drug has become a cornerstone of Bristol Myers Squibb’s portfolio, generating $2.7 billion in U.S. sales in 2024 and an additional $537 million in the first quarter of 2025 alone. Also marketed internationally as Imnovid, Pomalyst is a vital therapy for patients with multiple myeloma, a disease with no known cure and a five-year survival rate of approximately 62.4% based on data from 2015 to 2021.</p>
<p dir="ltr">The high revenue from Pomalyst underscores its importance to Bristol Myers Squibb, which acquired Celgene, the drug’s original developer, in a $74 billion deal in 2019. However, Cigna’s lawsuit claims that this financial success was bolstered by unlawful practices designed to extend Pomalyst’s market exclusivity far beyond what was justifiable, keeping more affordable generic alternatives out of reach for patients and payers.</p>
<p dir="ltr">Cigna’s complaint outlines a multi-pronged strategy allegedly employed by Bristol Myers Squibb and Celgene to maintain their monopoly. The insurer accuses the companies of defrauding the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office to secure patents for Pomalyst, filing “sham” lawsuits against generic drug manufacturers, and entering into anticompetitive settlement agreements to delay generic competition until 2026.</p>
<p dir="ltr">According to the lawsuit, Celgene misrepresented key information to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office when securing patents for Pomalyst. Specifically, Cigna alleges that Celgene failed to disclose that a Boston-based physician had already patented the use of pomalidomide for treating multiple myeloma. Additionally, Celgene is accused of claiming “unexpected” positive results in testing to obtain patents, despite evidence that the drug’s stability issues had been addressed through routine scientific methods decades earlier. These allegedly fraudulent patents allowed Celgene to extend its market exclusivity, preventing generic competitors from entering the market.</p>
<p dir="ltr">Cigna further contends that Celgene abused the federal judicial system by filing baseless patent infringement lawsuits against generic drugmakers, including industry players like Teva Pharmaceutical Industries, Aurobindo Pharma, Breckenridge Pharmaceutical, Eugia, and Natco Pharma. The complaint describes these lawsuits as “sham litigation,” asserting that no reasonable litigant would have expected to succeed in proving the validity or infringement of the patents in question, which covered the method of treatment, formulation, and crystal form of Pomalyst. These lawsuits, Cigna argues, were strategically designed to delay generic competition by tying up challengers in lengthy legal battles.</p>
<p dir="ltr">Perhaps the most contentious allegation involves so-called “reverse payment” agreements, where Celgene allegedly paid generic manufacturers substantial sums to abandon their efforts to challenge Pomalyst’s patents and delay launching cheaper versions until early 2026. These payments, which Cigna claims reached into the nine figures, are said to have vastly exceeded the potential revenues the generic companies could have earned even if they had prevailed in court. The lawsuit also suggests that these agreements were tied to similar deals involving another Celgene drug, Revlimid, creating a coordinated strategy to restrict generic competition for both drugs and maintain artificially high prices.</p>
<p dir="ltr">The alleged monopolistic practices have had a profound financial impact, according to Cigna. By delaying the availability of generic Pomalyst, which could have entered the market as early as October 2020, Bristol Myers Squibb forced insurers, health benefit providers, and patients to pay inflated prices for the drug. Cigna claims that these overcharges amount to “many hundreds of millions, if not billions, of dollars,” significantly increasing healthcare costs for payers and consumers alike. The insurer is seeking triple damages under the federal Sherman Antitrust Act, which allows for such penalties in cases of anticompetitive behavior, as well as injunctive relief to halt the alleged unlawful conduct.</p>
<p dir="ltr">This is not the first time Bristol Myers Squibb has faced such accusations. In September 2023, Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Louisiana led a proposed class-action lawsuit raising similar claims, alleging that Celgene used fraudulent patents and sham lawsuits to protect Pomalyst’s monopoly. However, in April 2025, U.S. District Judge Edgardo Ramos dismissed that case, ruling that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that Celgene committed fraud in procuring patents or that its lawsuits against generic manufacturers were baseless. The dismissal has not deterred Cigna, which filed its lawsuit just two months later, presenting a detailed case that it hopes will withstand judicial scrutiny.</p>
<p dir="ltr">Cigna’s lawsuit highlights ongoing concerns within the pharmaceutical industry about “patent gaming” and other tactics used to extend market exclusivity for high-revenue drugs. Such practices have drawn increasing scrutiny from regulators, lawmakers, and consumer advocates, who argue that they contribute to skyrocketing drug prices and limit access to affordable treatments. The case also underscores the financial burden borne by health insurers and patients when generic competition is delayed, particularly for critical medications like Pomalyst, which treats a life-threatening condition with limited therapeutic alternatives.</p>
<p dir="ltr">As of the filing date, Bristol Myers Squibb had not publicly responded to Cigna’s allegations. The company’s earlier success in dismissing the Blue Cross and Blue Shield lawsuit suggests it may rely on similar legal arguments to defend itself, including asserting the legitimacy of its patents and the validity of its litigation against generic competitors. The outcome of this case could hinge on whether Cigna can provide sufficient evidence to prove fraud and anticompetitive intent, overcoming the high bar set by the earlier dismissal.</p>
<p dir="ltr">Cigna’s lawsuit represents a bold challenge to Bristol Myers Squibb’s practices and could have far-reaching implications for the pharmaceutical industry. A successful outcome for Cigna could embolden other payers to pursue similar claims, while a victory for Bristol Myers Squibb might reinforce the ability of drugmakers to leverage patent strategies to protect their market share. The case is set to proceed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, with Cigna seeking a jury trial to determine the extent of the alleged damages and the appropriate remedies.</p>
<p dir="ltr">As the legal battle unfolds, stakeholders across the healthcare ecosystem—insurers, patients, and policymakers—will be closely watching to see how the courts address these complex allegations of monopolistic behavior in the high-stakes world of pharmaceutical innovation.</p>
</div>
</div></div></div></div></div>

Cancel

Legal Forums

Post Reply: Cigna Files Antitrust Lawsuit Against Bristol Myers Squibb Over Alleged Pomalyst Monopoly -RT

Recent Posts

Crisis at Kenyatta National Hospital: Senators Demand Action on Overcrowding and Security Failures

Court Orders Equal Pay for UHC Nurses Amid Absorption Plan