A federal judge in New Jersey district court on Thursday dismissed anticompetitive claims brought against Bristol Myers Squibb by a number of insurers over an alleged scheme to delay generic entry for two cancer drugs.
Several plaintiffs — including Humana, Blue Cross Blue Shield Association and Cigna Corporation — in the consolidated lawsuit made the case during oral arguments last summer that Celgene (now part of BMS) “unlawfully monopolized” the market for its cancer treatments Revlimid and Thalomid. But Judge Esther Salas determined Thursday that the plaintiffs’ arguments rely on “insufficiently pled acts.”
“Even considering the claims in the context of a larger scheme, the Court finds that they do not sufficiently allege anticompetitive conduct when considered independently or in tandem,” Salas’ opinion reads.
Celgene first won approval for Thalomid and Revlimid in 1998 and 2005, respectively, before it was acquired by BMS in 2019. Thalomid is used to treat multiple myeloma and a complication of leprosy, while Revlimid was first approved for patients with myelodysplastic syndromes and has since racked up a handful of indications in multiple myeloma and mantle cell lymphoma.
Revlimid generated more than $6 billion in 2023 sales, down 39% from the year prior, mostly because of generic competition, according to BMS. But plaintiffs argued that generic competition may have come sooner if not for several alleged efforts by BMS to deter rivals.
The accusations include refusing to sell samples to generic manufacturers, striking an anticompetitive settlement agreement to delay a generic version of Revlimid and obtaining Revlimid patents fraudulently.
Judge Salas dismissed the claims, noting that “whether taken separately or as an overall scheme, such acts as pled do not constitute impermissible” under antitrust law.
Several of the insurers were not available for immediate comment on Friday. BMS and the Blue Cross Blue Shield Association declined to comment.