Cigna Sues Bristol Myers Squibb Over Pomalyst Antitrust Allegations

Highlights

• Cigna has filed a new antitrust lawsuit against BMS over anti-competitive practices involving Pomalyst.
• The complaint accuses BMS and subsidiary Celgene of fraud, sham litigation, and delaying generic drug entry.
• Pomalyst brought in $3.5 billion globally in 2024, with $2.7 billion from U.S. sales.
• The lawsuit comes two months after a similar class action suit against BMS was dismissed in court.
• Cigna seeks a jury trial and treble damages for alleged overcharges.
• BMS denies wrongdoing; the drug is expected to face generic competition starting in 2025.

Renewed Legal Pressure on Bristol Myers Squibb

Bristol Myers Squibb (BMS) is once again under legal scrutiny over its blockbuster multiple myeloma drug, Pomalyst. Just two months after a federal judge dismissed a class action suit targeting the company’s strategies for maintaining market exclusivity, BMS is facing similar allegations in a new lawsuit filed by health insurance giant Cigna.

On Tuesday in Manhattan, Cigna submitted a detailed 203-page complaint accusing BMS of leveraging anti-competitive practices to delay generic competition for Pomalyst. According to the filing, BMS employed a “pattern of fraud on the U.S. patent office, by abuse of the federal judicial system and by eventually settling with generic competitors for extended delay of generic entry for years through agreements that protect unlawful supra-competitive pricing.”

Accusations Extend to Celgene’s Role

The lawsuit also names Celgene, a BMS subsidiary, which initially developed and commercialized Pomalyst before being acquired by BMS in 2019 for $74 billion. The majority of the alleged misconduct occurred prior to this acquisition.

Cigna claims that Celgene failed to disclose a prior patent by a Boston Children’s Hospital physician regarding the use of Pomalyst’s active ingredient for treating multiple myeloma. The company is further accused of securing “bogus patents” by asserting it had resolved formulation stability issues, which Cigna argues had already been addressed through “routine optimization for decades.”

Alleged Market Manipulation and Financial Impact

Cigna asserts that by using these tactics, BMS effectively kept lower-cost generics off the market, compelling insurers and healthcare payers to overspend. The company contends it and others were forced to pay “many hundreds of millions, if not billions, of dollars” more than necessary due to the lack of generic alternatives.

The lawsuit also alleges that BMS and Celgene filed patent infringement lawsuits with little merit, purely as a delay tactic to prolong Pomalyst’s market dominance. These actions mirror claims made in a 2023 class action case led by Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Louisiana, which was dismissed earlier this year by Judge Edgardo Ramos in New York on the basis that the plaintiffs failed to prove BMS engaged in an unlawful scheme.

Legal and Market Implications

Cigna is now seeking a jury trial and financial restitution amounting to three times the alleged overcharges. Pomalyst, originally approved in 2013, generated $3.5 billion globally in 2024, with $2.7 billion coming from U.S. sales alone. The drug is expected to face its first generic competition in 2025.

As one of the top U.S. health insurers, Cigna reported $247 billion in revenue last year, placing it fourth globally behind UnitedHealthcare, Elevance, and CVS. BMS, on the other hand, recorded $48 billion in 2024 revenues, with 7% derived from Pomalyst.