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.”
13 Strategies to Avoid the Nocebo Effect During Biosimilar Switching
December 18th 2024A systematic review identified 13 strategies, including patient and provider education, empathetic communication, and shared decision-making, to mitigate the nocebo effect in biosimilar switching, emphasizing the need for a multifaceted approach to improve patient perceptions and therapeutic outcomes.
Biosimilars Policy Roundup for September 2024—Podcast Edition
October 6th 2024On this episode of Not So Different, we discuss the FDA's approval of a new biosimilar for treating retinal conditions, which took place in September 2024 alongside other major industry developments, including ongoing legal disputes and broader trends in market dynamics and regulatory challenges.
Eye on Pharma: Golimumab Biosimilar Update; Korea Approves Denosumab; Xbrane, Intas Collaboration
December 10th 2024Alvotech and Advanz Pharma have submitted a European marketing application for their golimumab biosimilar to treat inflammatory diseases, while Celltrion secured Korean approval for denosumab biosimilars, and Intas Pharmaceuticals partnered with Xbrane Biopharma on a nivolumab biosimilar.
Perceptions of Biosimilar Switching Among Veterans With IBD
December 2nd 2024Veterans with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) prioritize shared decision-making, transparency, and individualized care in biosimilar switching, favoring delayed switching for severe cases and greater patient control.
The Rebate War: How Originator Companies Are Fighting Back Against Biosimilars
November 25th 2024Few biologics in the US have multiple biosimilar competitors, but originator biologics respond quickly to competition by increasing rebates and lowering net prices, despite short approval-to-launch timelines for biosimilars.