AbbVie Sued for Alleged Antitrust Violations Over Blockbuster Med Humira
UFCW Local 1500 Welfare Fund, which is the largest union of grocery store workers in New York state, filed the proposed class action lawsuit against AbbVie and numerous other companies Monday, contending that AbbVie abused the patent process and colluded with other drug companies to improperly stave off competition for Humira in the U.S. market.
March 19, 2019 at 02:08 PM
4 minute read
The original version of this story was published on New York Law Journal
The maker of the blockbuster medication Humira created a “patent thicket” to illegally maintain a monopoly over the drug so it could be sold at an ever-increasing rate to the U.S. market, a major union has claimed in a newly filed antitrust class action lawsuit.
UFCW Local 1500 Welfare Fund, which is the largest union of grocery store workers in New York state, filed the proposed class action lawsuit against AbbVie and numerous other companies Monday, contending that AbbVie abused the patent process and colluded with other drug companies to improperly stave off competition for Humira in the U.S. market.
The lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois by attorneys from New York-based Labaton Sucharow, Chicago-area firm Freed Kanner London & Millen and Philadelphia-based Fine, Kaplan and Black.
According to the 84-page complaint, AbbVie applied for 250 patents to protect Humira, an anti-inflammatory that has made $130 billion in sales since launching 15 years ago, and used those patents to enter into anti-competitive settlement agreements with several other drug companies that allegedly guaranteed AbbVie would extend its monopoly over the drug until 2023.
“The sheer number of patents makes it 'nearly impossible for any biosimilar to feasibly litigate all of these patents,'” the union said in the complaint. “AbbVie has abused the patent system—collecting dozens and dozens of patents, many of which are overlapping and non-inventive—as a means to block competition in the U.S. market. It simply is not feasible for biosimilar manufacturers to engage in time-consuming and expensive patent litigation against this mass of dubious patents.”
The lawsuit comes less than a month after the U.S. Senate finance committee conducted a hearing into rising drug costs, questioning CEOs from seven major drug companies, including AbbVie. The complaint notes comments from senators who were critical of allegedly anti-competitive conduct that involves manipulating patents to preserve monopolies.
According to the complaint, the company that developed the antibody that makes Humira effective—which was later bought by an AbbVie predecessor—filed its patent application for the biologic in February 1996. At the time AbbVie's predecessor company, Abbott Laboratories, bought that company, the patent was set to expire in December 2016.
The FDA approved the drug in 2002, and, after that, AbbVie began to develop its “extensive 'patent thicket,'” the complaint said. The company filed 250 patent applications, and eventually obtained more than 100 patents, the complaint said.
The complaint, which alleges violations of the Sherman Act as well as numerous state antitrust and consumer protection laws, said AbbVie then used those patents to strong-arm seven competitors into “illegal” settlement agreements whereby the companies agreed not to introduce any generic versions of the drug until 2023.
The complaint also noted that the price of the drug has risen from $19,000 per patient after rebates in 2012 to as high as $50,000 per patient per year before rebates.
“AbbVie has abused the U.S. patent system in an illegal attempt to eliminate market competition for its drug Humira and keep prices sky-high,” Gregory Asciolla, co-chair of Labaton Sucharow's antitrust and competition litigation practice, said in a statement to the media. “With this lawsuit, AbbVie will have to open the doors to competition and compensate those who have paid exorbitant prices for their medication.”
The proposed class, according to the complaint, would be composed of those who indirectly purchased, or reimbursed for the drug since early 2017.
Adelle Infante, a spokeswoman for AbbVie, said in a statement, “Patents are essential to encourage and protect the investment required to develop advances in healthcare. Humira's innovative patents have repeatedly withstood challenges in legal proceedings. Our patent settlements, which do not include any payments by AbbVie, balance protecting our investment in innovation with access to biosimilars 10 years before our last Humira patent expires, and the allegations in the lawsuit are without merit.”
In an emailed statement to the press, a spokeswoman for Pfizer, one of the companies that entered into a patent settlement with AbbVie, said the company stood by the lawfulness of its agreement.
“We believe the lawsuit is without merit and that there are multiple grounds for supporting dismissal of the plaintiff's claims,” spokeswoman Sally Beatty said.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllSage Therapeutics Axes GC After Drug-Pipeline Failures Force Cost-Cutting
Los Angeles Secures $35M Settlement From Monsanto in Water Contamination Lawsuit
Trending Stories
- 1Infant Formula Judge Sanctions Kirkland's Jim Hurst: 'Overtly Crossed the Lines'
- 2Trump's Return to the White House: The Legal Industry Reacts
- 3Election 2024: Nationwide Judicial Races and Ballot Measures to Watch
- 4Climate Disputes, International Arbitration, and State Court Limitations for Global Issues
- 5Judicial Face-Off: Navigating the Ethical and Efficient Use of AI in Legal Practice [CLE Pending]
- 6How Much Does the Frequency of Retirement Withdrawals Matter?
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250