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.”
BioRationality: EMA Accepts Waiver of Clinical Efficacy Testing of Biosimilars
April 21st 2025Sarfaraz K. Niazi, PhD, shares his latest citizen's petition to the FDA, calling on the agency to waive clinical efficacy testing in response to the European Medicines Agency's (EMA) efforts towards the same goal.
How AI Can Help Address Cost-Related Nonadherence to Biologic, Biosimilar Treatment
March 9th 2025Despite saving billions, biosimilars still account for only a small share of the biologics market—what's standing in the way of broader adoption and how can artificial intelligence (AI) help change that?
How State Substitution Laws Shape Insulin Biosimilar Adoption
April 15th 2025States with fewer restrictions on biosimilar substitution tend to see higher uptake of interchangeable insulin glargine, showing how even small policy details can significantly influence biosimilar adoption and expand access to more affordable insulin.
Will the FTC Be More PBM-Friendly Under a Second Trump Administration?
February 23rd 2025On this episode of Not So Different, we explore the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC) second interim report on pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) with Joe Wisniewski from Turquoise Health, discussing key issues like preferential reimbursement, drug pricing transparency, biosimilars, shifting regulations, and how a second Trump administration could reshape PBM practices.
Experts Pressure Congress to Remove Roadblocks for Biosimilars
April 12th 2025Lawmakers and expert witnesses emphasized the potential of biosimilars to lower health care costs by overcoming barriers like pharmacy benefit manager practices, limited awareness, and regulatory delays to improve access and competition in chronic disease management during a recent congressional hearing.