Gilead Sciences Accused of Paying to Keep Competition Off the Market
A Gilead Sciences class action lawsuit was filed against Gilead Sciences for allegedly paying its competitor, specifically generic drug-manufacturer Cipla, to keep competitive HIV treatment off the market.
Consumers accuse the company of illegally monopolizing the market with its Truvada medication that deprived customers of lower-cost options.
The antitrust case was brought by the Jacksonville Police Officers and Fire Fighters Health Insurance Trust in Jacksonville, Florida in the U.S.
The payment, according to the lawsuit, “likely came in the form of a license to produce another drug, Atripla, a license to produce drugs for Hepatitis C in India, or both.”
In exchange, Cipla would refrain from selling generic versions of Gilead’s Truvada that will have the same active ingredients.
You can read about the case under the name: Jacksonville Police Officers and Fire Fighters Health Insurance Trust, et al. v. Gilead Sciences Inc., et al., Case No. 3:20-cv-06522, N.D. CA.
Are you affected by the allegations in this class action lawsuit? Contact us today for help.
Know More: The Gilead Sciences Class Action Lawsuit
Truvada was approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in July 2012 as the only pre-exposure prophylaxis, or pre-treatment that, along with safe sex practices, could reduce the risk of sexually acquired human immunodeficiency virus, or HIV, in adults at high risk.
Studies revealed that Truvada does, in fact, significantly reduce the risk of contracting HIV.
Gilead filed a lawsuit against Cipla in 2012 for allegedly infringing on Gilead’s active ingredients patents in Truvada – emtricitabine, and tenofovir disproxil fumarate. Two years after, the companies informed the court that they had reached a settlement that, although was kept from the public, announced a deal to a “license agreement” have been agreed on.
According to the class action lawsuit, “the way Gilead chose to respond to these various threats of competition was to offer valuable consideration to Cipla in exchange for its agreement not to challenge the patents on emtricitabine. The result of these agreements was that Cipla declined to enter the market ‘at risk,’ dropped its challenge to the emtricitabine patents, and agreed not to compete against Truvada until some date in the future.”
Gilead’s actions violated federal antitrust laws, unfair business practices, and various state laws.
Consumers have no choice but the pay whatever price Gilead sets because there are no other alternatives. The lawsuit stated that “for Gilead’s unlawful agreements, the price of Truvada would have been significantly lower, and lower-priced co-packaged equivalents would have been available.”
Editor’s note on the Gilead Sciences Class Action Lawsuit:
This piece is written about the recent Gilead Sciences Antitrust Lawsuit. If you are considered eligible to be among the class of consumers described in the class action, you may eventually be able to participate in receiving any compensation the court may award.
If you believe that what is alleged in the Gilead Sciences Antitrust class action lawsuit has affected you, please don’t hesitate to reach out to us.
We’d be happy to help you take a step in the right direction, fight this issue, and better enable you to join in on any potential consumer class action. If interested, please send an email to Outreach@ConsiderTheConsumer.com, find us on Twitter or Facebook, or even connect with us directly on our website! We look forward to hearing from you all.
Similarly, please check out our current list of Class Actions and Class Action Investigations, here.
Interested in articles like these? Become a subscriber below!