Court Advanced Antitrust Claims Against Drug Makers
The ruling clears the way for claims alleging that Celgene, Teva, and AbbVie participated in illegal drug market monopolies.
Updated on Sept. 29, 2026 in Healthcare
Live Poll
Should the government take stronger action against pharmaceutical companies that allegedly block generic competition?
A federal judge denied a motion to dismiss antitrust litigation targeting drug manufacturers Celgene, Teva, and AbbVie. The claims allege these companies conspired to monopolize the market for the drug Revlimid.
Why it matters
The ruling keeps active a case that questions the legality of industry pay-for-delay agreements that impact drug pricing and market competition. For operators, it underscores the ongoing regulatory scrutiny regarding manufacturer settlement practices.
A federal court has allowed antitrust claims to move forward against three major pharmaceutical manufacturers. The case currently assesses allegations of market monopolization involving the drug Revlimid.
The players
Celgene
A pharmaceutical company and subsidiary of Bristol Myers Squibb known for its oncology and immunology drug portfolio.
Teva
A global pharmaceutical leader and the world's largest manufacturer of generic medicines.
AbbVie
A research-based biopharmaceutical company focused on developing therapies for complex and chronic conditions.
Michael E. Farbiarz
A United States District Judge presiding over the antitrust case.
Natco
A pharmaceutical firm known for developing complex generics and specialized drug products.
The details
The court identified a plausible pay-for-delay agreement between Celgene and Natco, which allegedly restricted competition. Under the disputed settlement, the companies reportedly split the market and permitted Natco to maintain high per-unit pricing by mirroring Celgene's pricing structure.
Timeline
September 29, 2026: District Judge Michael E. Farbiarz denied the motion to dismiss antitrust claims.
Market Landscape
This case follows a long-standing pattern of judicial scrutiny regarding pharmaceutical pay-for-delay agreements. It aligns with the precedent set by FTC v. Actavis, which allows courts to evaluate whether such settlements unfairly stifle competition.
Operators in highly regulated sectors should monitor the discovery phase of this case for shifts in how settlements are structured. Compliance teams should audit existing settlement agreements to ensure they do not replicate these challenged anticompetitive models.
The takeaway
Antitrust litigation is intensifying for manufacturers using market-splitting settlements to secure pricing power. Closely track this case for future rulings on the scope of pay-for-delay liability, which may force a revision of standard vendor and competitor settlement terms.
Further reading
For additional context on industry regulatory shifts, visit the Healthcare section.
Source note: This article includes information reported by Mlex.
Live Poll
Should the government take stronger action against pharmaceutical companies that allegedly block generic competition?
