Lovenox Consumers Want Class Certification in Price-Fixing Lawsuit

A proposed Class of indirect Lovenox purchasers recently asked a Tennessee federal court for certification in their antitrust class action lawsuit.

Lovenox is an anticoagulant prescribed to patients who are at risk of developing blood clots, especially those that develop in the legs which is a condition known as deep vein thrombosis (DVT).

On Nov. 16, the plaintiffs in a Lovenox antitrust class action filed a motion for Class certification of two Classes.

The plaintiffs seek to represent a damages Class of indirect buyers in numerous states who paid for or were reimbursed for Lovenox or enoxaparin, the generic version of the drug between Sept. 21, 2011 and Sept. 30, 2015.

States included in the damages Class are Arizona, Arkansas, California, District of Columbia, Florida, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oregon, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, West Virginia, and Wisconsin

The plaintiffs also seek to represent a nationwide injunctive relief Class of all indirect purchasers of Lovenox or generic enoxaparin since Sept. 21, 2011.

Nashville General Hospital and American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees District Council 37 Health & Security Plan, the two plaintiffs in the class action, argue that their allegations center on issues which are common to the Class Members rather than individual and unique.

“These issues — the structure of the enoxaparin market, the nature of the regulatory environment, defendants’ deception and its effects — are all common to the class, and easily predominate over any possible issues affecting only individual members,” the plaintiffs in the Lovenox class action lawsuit argue.

The Lovenox antitrust class action claims that drug manufacturers Momenta Pharmaceuticals Inc. and Sandoz Inc. conspired together to keep another generic version of Lovenox off the market so that the only options for purchasing were Lovenox or generic enoxaparin.

The two companies allegedly entered into an agreement in 2003 in which they agreed to split the profits of Sandoz’s generic enoxaparin. However, this agreement would only take effect if Sandoz’s drug was the only option in the country.

Their tactics for ensuring a monopoly reportedly stemmed from Momenta’s patent on a quality test used in the production of enoxaparin.

According to the Lovenox antitrust class action lawsuit, Momenta managed to manipulate Sanofi-Aventis into throwing out its patent application for a quality test for enoxaparin so that its similar patent would be approved first. The scheme reportedly worked, and Momenta’s patent was approved in 2009.

In 2011, a competing pharmaceutical company received approval by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to sell a generic version of enoxaparin, but Momenta immediately responded by suing the company for patent infringement over their quality test. Through these and similar actions, Momenta has allegedly maintained control of the market and ensured that Sandoz’s generic enoxaparin is the only option.

The proposed Class is represented by Brendan P. Glackin, Mark P. Chalos, Dean M. Harvey, Bruce W. Leppla, Katherine L. Benson, John Tate Spragens and Adam Gitlin of Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein LLP.

The Lovenox Antitrust Class Action Lawsuit is The Hospital Authority of Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County Tennessee, et al. v. Momenta Pharmaceuticals Inc., et al., Case No. 3:15-cv-01100, in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee.

UPDATE: December 2019, the Lovenox price-fixing class action website is now live. Click here to learn more.