Bristol Myers Faces Antitrust Challenge Over Pomalyst

Bristol Myers Squibb (BMY finds itself at the epicenter of a significant antitrust battle, with insurer Cigna launching a lawsuit on June 24, 2025, alleging the pharmaceutical giant engaged in anti-competitive practices to unlawfully extend its monopoly over the crucial multiple myeloma drug, Pomalyst. This legal challenge, centered on claims of patent fraud and strategic delays, casts a long shadow over a product that has been a consistent revenue driver, even as BMY grapples with a substantial $-8.95$ billion net income swing to the negative in its 2024 fiscal year, a stark contrast to the $8.03$ billion positive net income reported in 2023 [Monexa AI].

This dramatic shift in profitability, coinciding with heightened legal scrutiny, underscores the complexities and financial pressures inherent in the pharmaceutical sector. While BMY reported a robust +7.32% increase in revenue to $48.3$ billion in 2024 [Monexa AI], the lawsuit's implications for Pomalyst's future market exclusivity could profoundly influence the company's financial trajectory and strategic positioning, particularly as it navigates a landscape increasingly defined by patent expirations and the urgent need for pipeline innovation.

The Core of the Controversy: Cigna's Antitrust Allegations Against Bristol Myers Squibb#

Cigna's lawsuit against BMY over Pomalyst is a direct challenge to the pharmaceutical company’s alleged tactics in maintaining market exclusivity. The core allegations, filed on June 24, 2025, claim that BMY's predecessor, Celgene, engaged in a multi-pronged anti-competitive scheme, primarily focusing on Pomalyst’s active ingredient, Pomalidomide [Vertex AI Grounding API - Source 1]. This legal action highlights a growing trend of insurers and generic manufacturers contesting the methods used by patentees to extend drug monopolies, reflecting broader concerns about drug pricing and market access.

The lawsuit emphasizes that these alleged practices are not merely aggressive business strategies but deliberate violations of U.S. antitrust laws, specifically the Sherman Act. The outcome could set significant precedents for how pharmaceutical companies manage their patent portfolios and interact with potential generic competitors, impacting the broader industry’s approach to intellectual property and market competition.

What are the main antitrust allegations Cigna has made against Bristol Myers Squibb regarding Pomalyst?#

Cigna's legal complaint asserts that Bristol Myers Squibb (BMY maintained an unlawful monopoly for Pomalyst through a series of anti-competitive actions. These include fraud on the Patent Office by concealing prior patents and misrepresenting stability issues to secure bogus patents, initiating sham litigation against generic competitors like Teva and Mylan to delay their market entry, and engaging in secret pay-for-delay agreements funded by profits from Revlimid to artificially prolong Pomalyst's exclusivity until at least 2026 [Vertex AI Grounding API - Source 1, Vertex AI Grounding API - Source 2]. These tactics collectively aim to stifle competition and keep drug prices high.

Cigna alleges that these actions were not isolated incidents but part of a systematic effort to prevent generic versions of Pomalyst from reaching the market. The lawsuit claims that the patents granted for Pomalyst were based on misrepresentations, allowing BMY to create an artificial barrier to entry for lower-cost alternatives. This alleged manipulation of the patent system, combined with aggressive legal maneuvers, forms the crux of Cigna's case, seeking to dismantle what it views as an illegally maintained monopoly.

Pomalyst's Role and Financial Impact on BMY's Revenue Dynamics#

Pomalyst is an integral part of BMY's oncology franchise, a critical treatment for multiple myeloma that has consistently contributed to the company's top line. While specific revenue figures for Pomalyst were not provided in the recent financial data, its significance can be inferred from the intensity of the legal battle to maintain its exclusivity. Such high-value drugs are crucial for pharmaceutical companies, particularly as they face the looming