CASE 0:20-cv-02071-SRN-ECW Doc. 52 Filed 01/06/21 Page 1 of 67
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
`
`
`
`
`Case No. 0:20-cv-02071-SRN-ECW
`
`
`
`
`
`BCBSM, INC., HEALTH CARE SERVICE
`CORPORATION, MOLINA
`HEALTHCARE, INC., AND BLUE CROSS
`AND BLUE SHIELD OF FLORIDA, INC.,
`
`
`
`v.
`
` Plaintiffs,
`
`
`CELGENE CORPORATION AND
`BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB
`CORPORATION,
`
` Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ MEMORANDUM OF LAW
`IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`
`
`
`

`

`CASE 0:20-cv-02071-SRN-ECW Doc. 52 Filed 01/06/21 Page 2 of 67
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES .............................................................................................. iii
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................... 1
`
`BACKGROUND ...................................................................................................... 3
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Statutory and Regulatory Guidelines. .............................................................. 3
`
`Celgene’s patent misconduct. ......................................................................... 4
`
`Celgene filed serial patent litigations, often resulting in “pay-for-delay”
`settlements and abused the Citizen Petition process. ....................................... 5
`
`III.
`
`LEGAL STANDARD ............................................................................................... 7
`
`IV. ARGUMENT ............................................................................................................ 8
`
`A.
`
`Plaintiffs assert viable antitrust theories. ......................................................... 8
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`Plaintiffs’ antitrust allegations must be viewed as a whole. .................. 8
`
`Celgene’s unreasonable refusal to provide Thalomid and Revlimid
`samples states a valid antitrust claim. ................................................. 12
`
`Celgene used impermissible serial litigation and fraud on the PTO to
`preserve its monopoly as part of an overall anticompetitive scheme. .. 13
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`Serial litigation. ..................................................................... 13
`
`Walker Process fraud. ............................................................ 17
`
`4.
`
`Plaintiffs suffered antitrust injury. ...................................................... 20
`
`a.
`
`Plaintiffs plead that Celgene’s blocking patents are invalid,
`despite not being required to do so. ...................................... 21
`
`B.
`
`Plaintiffs’ state law antitrust claims are well pled....................................... 23
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Plaintiffs assert valid antitrust claims. ................................................ 23
`
`Plaintiffs allege sufficient effects on intrastate conduct. ..................... 25
`
`C.
`
`Plaintiffs adequately allege consumer protection and unjust enrichment
`claims. .......................................................................................................... 26
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`

`CASE 0:20-cv-02071-SRN-ECW Doc. 52 Filed 01/06/21 Page 3 of 67
`
`
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`The Complaint satisfies Rule 8’s notice pleading standard. ................ 26
`
`Plaintiffs allege requisite intrastate conduct. ...................................... 27
`
`Celgene’s various consumer protection arguments fail. ..................... 29
`
`Plaintiffs have adequately pleaded unjust enrichment. ....................... 32
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`Statutory remedies do not preclude unjust enrichment claims. 32
`
`Illinois Brick does not bar Plaintiffs’ claims. ........................ 33
`
`Plaintiffs adequately allege direct benefits conferred
`on Celgene. ............................................................................ 34
`
`D.
`
`Plaintiffs’ claims for each Thalomid and Revlimid purchase made within
`the limitations periods are timely. ............................................................... 35
`
`1.
`
`Plaintiffs’ claims are timely under the “continuing violation
`doctrine.” ........................................................................................... 36
`
`E.
`
`HCSC’s off-label promotion allegations state a claim for relief. ................ 39
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`Celgene perpetrated a multi-pronged off-label marketing
`scheme. ............................................................................................. 40
`
`Brown Qui Tam Litigation ............................................................... 43
`
`HCSC and Prime .............................................................................. 44
`
`HCSC’s Claims are Properly Pled ................................................... 45
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`HCSC properly alleges a claim for fraud. ............................. 45
`
`HCSC properly alleges a claim for negligent
`misrepresentation. ................................................................. 48
`
`HCSC properly alleges a claim for unjust enrichment. ........ 51
`
`V.
`
`CONCLUSION ....................................................................................................... 51
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`
`

`

`CASE 0:20-cv-02071-SRN-ECW Doc. 52 Filed 01/06/21 Page 4 of 67
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Cases
`
`Abbott Labs. v. Teva Pharm. USA, Inc.,
`
`432 F. Supp. 2d 408 (D. Del. 2006) ....................................................................... 11
`
`Abels v. Farmers Commodities Corp.,
`
`259 F.3d 910 (8th Cir. 2001) .................................................................................. 45
`
`Adam A. Weschler & Son, Inc. v. Klank,
`
`561 A.2d 1003 (D.C. 1989) .................................................................................... 29
`
`Adams Public School District v. Asbestos Corporation, Ltd.,
`
`7 F.3d 717 (8th Cir. 1993) ...................................................................................... 39
`
`Arthur v. Microsoft Corp.,
`
`676 N.W.2d 29 (Neb. 2004) ................................................................................... 28
`
`Aquilar v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC,
`
`289 F. Supp. 3d. 1000 (D. Minn. 2018) ................................................................. 39
`
`Aspen Skiing Co. v. Aspen Highlands Skiing Corp.,
`
`472 U.S. 585 (1985) ............................................................................................... 12
`
`Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly,
`
`550 U.S. 544, 547 (2007) ................................................................................... 7, 26
`
`Berkey Photo, Inc. v. Eastman Kodak Company,
`
`603 F.2d 263 (2d Cir. 1979) ................................................................................... 36
`
`Blankenship v. USA Truck, Inc.,
`
`601 F.3d 852 (8th Cir. 2010) .................................................................................... 7
`
`Braden v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.,
`
`588 F.3d 585, 594 (8th Cir. 2009) ............................................................................ 7
`
`Brunswick Corp. v. Pueblo Bowl-O-Mat, Inc.,
`
`429 U.S. 477 (1977) ............................................................................................... 20
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`
`

`

`CASE 0:20-cv-02071-SRN-ECW Doc. 52 Filed 01/06/21 Page 5 of 67
`
`
`
`California v. ARC Am. Corp.,
`
`490 U.S. 93 (1989) ................................................................................................. 34
`
`California Motor Transp. Co. v. Trucking Unlimited,
`
`404 U.S. 508, 512 (1972) ....................................................................................... 13
`
`Cheramie Servs., Inc. v. Shell Deepwater Prod., Inc.,
`
`35 So. 3d 1053, 1057 (La. 2010) ............................................................................ 30
`
`Ciardi v. Hoffmann-LaRoche, LTD,
`
`No. 993244, 2000 WL 33162197 (Mass. Super. Sept. 29, 2000) .......................... 24
`
`Ciardi v. F. Hoffmann-La Roche, Ltd.,
`
`762 N.E.2d 303 (Mass. 2002) ........................................................................... 24, 28
`
`City Ctr. Realty Partner, LLC v. Macy's Retail Holdings, Inc.,
`
`Civ. No. 17-CV-528 (SRN/TNL), 2017 WL 4081896
`
`(D. Minn. Sep. 13, 2017) ........................................................................................ 33
`
`City of New Bedford v. Lloyd Inv. Associates, Inc.,
`292 N.E.2d 688 (Mass. 1973) .......................................................................... App. B
`
`
`Cont’l Ore Co. v. Union Carbide & Carbon Corp.,
`
`370 U.S. 690 (1962) ............................................................................................... 11
`
`Cowell v. Palmer Twp.,
`
`263 F.3d 286 (3d Cir. 2001) ................................................................................... 36
`
`Cuozzo Speed Technologies, LLC v. Lee,
`
`136 S. Ct. 2131 (2016) ........................................................................................... 19
`
`Dahl v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.,
`
`742 N.W.2d 186 (Minn. Ct. App. 2007) ................................................................ 51
`
`Daigle v. Ford Motor Co.,
`
`713 F. Supp. 2d 822 (D. Minn. 2010) .................................................................... 32
`
`Double D Spotting Serv., Inc. v. Supervalu, Inc.,
`
`136 F.3d 554 (8th Cir. 1998) .................................................................................... 8
`
`
`
`
`iv
`
`
`

`

`CASE 0:20-cv-02071-SRN-ECW Doc. 52 Filed 01/06/21 Page 6 of 67
`
`
`
`Evangelical Lutheran Church in Am. Bd. of Pensions v. Spherion Pac. Workforce LLC,
`
`Civ. No. 04-4791, 2005 WL 1041487 (D. Minn. May 4, 2005) ............................ 49
`
`Exergen Corp. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.,
`
`575 F.3d 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2009) .............................................................................. 18
`
`FTC v. Actavis, Inc.,
`
`570 U.S. 136 (2013) ......................................................................................... 15, 19
`
`Gibbons v. J. Nuckolls, Inc.,
`
`216 S.W.3d 667 (Mo. 2007) ................................................................................... 31
`
`Goshen v. Mut. Life Ins. Co.,
`
`774 N.E.2d 1190 (N.Y. 2002) ................................................................................ 28
`
`Grozdanich v. Leisure Hills Health Center, Inc.,
`
`25 F. Supp. 2d 953 (D. Minn. 1998) ...................................................................... 49
`
`Hanover 3201 Realty v. Village Supermarkets, Inc.,
`
`806 F.3d 162 (3d Cir. 2015) ............................................................................. 13, 14
`
`Harney v. Associated Materials, LLC,
`
`No. 3:16-CV-1587-SI, 2018 WL 468303 (D. Or. Jan. 18, 2018) ................... App. B
`
`Hoyt Props., Inc. v. Prod. Res. Grp., LLC,
`
`736 N.W.2d 313 (Minn. 2007) ......................................................................... 46, 48
`
`Huff v. Pinstripes, Inc.,
`
`972 F. Supp. 2d 1065 (D. Minn. 2013) .................................................................. 33
`
`In re Aggrenox Antitrust Litig.,
`
`94 F. Supp. 3d 224 (D. Conn. 2015) .................................................... 25, 36, 37, 38
`
`In re Androgel Antitrust Litig. (No. II),
`
`MDL No. 2084, 2018 WL 2984873 (N.D. Ga. June 14, 2018) ............................. 20
`
`In re Asacol Antitrust Litig.,
`
`No. 15-cv-12730, 2016 WL 4083333 (D. Mass. July 20, 2016) ............................ 16
`
`In re Brand Name Prescription Drugs Antitrust Litig.,
`
`
`
`v
`
`
`

`

`CASE 0:20-cv-02071-SRN-ECW Doc. 52 Filed 01/06/21 Page 7 of 67
`
`
`
`123 F.3d 599 (7th Cir. 1997) .................................................................................. 26
`
`
`
`In re Buspirone Patent Litig.,
`
`185 F. Supp. 2d 363 (S.D.N.Y. 2002) .................................................................... 20
`
`In re Canadian Import Antitrust Litig.,
`
`470 F.3d 785 (8th Cir. 2006) ............................................................................ 20, 21
`
`In re Cardizem CD Antitrust Litig.,
`
`105 F. Supp. 2d 618 (E.D. Mich. 2000) ........................................................... 26, 34
`
`In re Chocolate Confectionary Antitrust Litig.,
`
`749 F. Supp. 2d 224 (M.D. Pa. 2010) .................................................................... 28
`
`In re DDAVP Indirect Purchaser Antitrust Litig.,
`
`903 F. Supp. 2d 198 (S.D.N.Y. 2012) .............................................................. 28, 35
`
`In re Digital Music Antitrust Litig.,
`
`812 F. Supp. 2d 390 (S.D.N.Y. 2011) .................................................................... 28
`
`In re Effexor Antitrust Litig.,
`
`357 F. Supp. 3d 363 (D.N.J. 2018) ............................................................. 25, 37, 38
`
`In re EpiPen (Epinephrine Injection, USP) Mktg., Sales Practices & Antitrust Litig.,
`
`No. 17- MD-2785-DDC-TJJ, 2017 WL 6524839 (D. Kan. Dec. 21, 2017) .......... 11
`
`In re EpiPen (Epinephrine Injection, USP) Mktg., Sales Practices & Antitrust Litig.,
`
`336 F. Supp. 3d 1256 (D. Kan. 2018) ........................................................ 33, 37, 38
`
`In re Flonase Antitrust Litig.,
`
`692 F. Supp. 2d 524 (E.D. Pa. 2010) ...................................................................... 35
`
`In re General American Life Insurance Co. Sales Practices Litig.,
`
`391 F.3d 907 (8th Cir. 2004) .................................................................................. 39
`
`In re Generic Pharm. Pricing Antitrust Litig.,
`
`368 F. Supp. 3d 814 (E.D. Pa. 2019) ............................................................... passim
`
`In re G-fees Antitrust Litig.,
`
`584 F. Supp. 2d 26 (D.D.C. 2008) ......................................................................... 33
`
`
`
`vi
`
`
`

`

`CASE 0:20-cv-02071-SRN-ECW Doc. 52 Filed 01/06/21 Page 8 of 67
`
`
`
`
`In re Humira (Adalimumab) Antitrust Litig.,
`
`465 F. Supp. 3d 811 (N.D. Ill. 2020) ................................................................ 22, 23
`
`In re Interior Molded Doors Antitrust Litig.,
`
`No. 3:18-cv-00718-JAG, 2019 WL 4478734 (E.D. Va. Sep. 18, 2019) ................ 29
`
`In re K-Dur Antitrust Litig.,
`
`338 F. Supp. 2d (D.N.J. 2004) ................................................................................ 38
`In re Lipitor Antitrust Litig.,
`
`868 F.3d 231 (3d Cir. 2017) ............................................................................. 16, 19
`
`In re Liquid Aluminum Sulfate,
`
`No. 16-md-2687 (JLL), 2017 WL 3131977 (D.N.J. July 20, 2017) ...................... 34
`
`In re Loestrin, 24 Fe Antitrust Litig.,
`
`433 F. Supp. 3d 274 (D.R.I. 2019) ......................................................................... 37
`
`In re Neurontin Antitrust Litig.,
`
`MDL No. 1479, 2009 WL 2751029 (D.N.J. Aug. 28, 2009) ........................... 11, 22
`
`In re Neurontin Mktg. and Sales Practices Litig.,
`
`712 F.3d 21 (1st Cir. 2013) .................................................................................... 48
`
`In re Niaspan Antitrust Litig.,
`
`42 F. Supp. 3d 735 (E.D. Pa. 2014) .................................................................. 36, 37
`
`In re Novartis & Par Antitrust Litig.,
`
`No. 18 Civ. 4361 (AKH), 2019 WL 3841711 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 14, 2019) ............. 33
`
`In re Opana ER Antitrust Litig.,
`
`162 F. Supp. 3d 704 (N.D. Ill. 2016) ...................................................................... 22
`
`In re Pharm. Indus. Average Wholesale Price Litig.,
`
`491 F. Supp. 2d 20 (D. Mass. 2007) ....................................................................... 30
`
`In re Pharm. Indus. Average Wholesale Price Litig.,
`
`582 F.3d 156 (1st Cir. 2009) .................................................................................. 30
`
`In re Pork Antitrust Litig.,
`
`
`
`vii
`
`
`

`

`CASE 0:20-cv-02071-SRN-ECW Doc. 52 Filed 01/06/21 Page 9 of 67
`
`
`
`Civ. No. 18-1776 (JRT/LIB), 2020 WL 6149666 (D. Minn. Oct. 20, 2020) ......... 24
`
`
`
`In re Pre-Filled Propane Tank Antitrust Litig.,
`
`860 F.3d 1059 (8th Cir. 2017) ................................................................................ 36
`
`In re Processed Egg Prods. Antitrust Litig.,
`
`851 F. Supp. 2d 867 (E.D. Pa. 2012) ................................................................ 29, 34
`
`In re Ranbaxy Generic Drug Application Antitrust Litig.,
`No. 19-md-2878, 2019 WL 6341298 (D. Mass. Nov. 27, 2019) ................ 30, 31, 32
`
`
`In re Relafen Antitrust Litig.,
`
`221 F.R.D. 260 (D. Mass. 2004) ............................................................................ 28
`
`In re Suboxone (Buprenorphine Hydrochloride & Naloxone) Antitrust Litig.,
`
`64 F. Supp. 3d 665 (E.D. Pa. 2014) ........................................................................ 32
`
`In re Thalomid and Revlimid Antitrust Litigation,
`
`No. 14-6997 (KSH) (CLW), 2015 WL 9589217 (D.N.J. Oct. 29, 2015) ....... passim
`
`In re Wellbutrin XL Antitrust Litig.,
`260 F.R.D. 143 (E.D. Pa. 2009) ............................................................................. 24
`
`
`In re Wellbutrin XL Antitrust Litig.,
`
`868 F.3d 132 (3d Cir. 2017) ................................................................................... 22
`
`In re Wholesale Grocery Prod. Antitrust Litig.,
`
`752 F.3d 728 (8th Cir. 2014) ............................................................................ 36, 37
`
`In re Workers’ Compensation Ins. Antitrust Litig.,
`
`867 F.2d 1552 (8th Cir. 1989) ................................................................................ 10
`
`Inline Packaging, LLC v. Graphic Packaging Int’l, Inc.,
`
`164 F. Supp. 3d 1117 (D. Minn. 2016) .................................................................... 8
`
`Inline Packaging, LLC v. Graphic Packaging Int’l, LLC,
`
`962 F.3d 1015 (8th Cir. 2020) ................................................................................ 17
`
`Inter City Oil Co. v. Murphy Oil Corp.,
`
`No. 4-76-CIV. 65, 1976 WL 1275 (D. Minn. June 25, 1976) ................................ 10
`
`
`
`viii
`
`
`

`

`CASE 0:20-cv-02071-SRN-ECW Doc. 52 Filed 01/06/21 Page 10 of 67
`
`
`
`
`Joyce v. Armstrong Teasdale LLP,
`
`635 F.3d 364 (8th Cir. 2011) .................................................................................... 7
`
`Keating v. Philip Morris, Inc.,
`
`417 N.W.2d 132 (Minn. App. 1987) ........................................................................ 8
`
`Kinetic Co. v. Medtronic, Inc.,
`
`672 F. Supp. 2d 933 (D. Minn. 2009) .................................................................... 31
`
`King Drug Co. of Florence, Inc. v. Cephalon, Inc.,
`
`702 F. Supp. 2d 514 (E.D. Pa. 2010) ...................................................................... 33
`
`Klehr v. A.O. Smith Corp.,
`
`521 U.S. 179 (1997) ............................................................................................... 36
`
`LaChance v. U.S. Smokeless Tobacco Co.,
`
`931 A.2d 571 (N.H. 2007) ...................................................................................... 28
`
`LePage’s Inc. v. 3M,
`
`324 F.3d 141 (3d Cir. 2003) ................................................................................... 11
`
`Louis DeGidio, Inc. v. Industrial Combustion, LLC,
`
`Civ. No. 19-2690 (JRT/ECW), 2020 WL 4676289
`
`(D. Minn. Aug. 12, 2020) ................................................................................. 45, 46
`
`Mack v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co.,
`
`673 So. 2d 100 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1996) .......................................................... 9, 24
`
`McCabe’s Furniture, Inc. v. La-Z-Boy Chair Co.,
`
`798 F.2d 323 (8th Cir. 1986) .................................................................................. 10
`
`McKinnon v. Honeywell Int’l, Inc.,
`
`977 A.2d 420 (Me. 2009) ....................................................................................... 30
`
`Maine State Ret. Sys. v. Countrywide Fin. Corp.,
`
`722 F. Supp. 2d 1157 (C.D. Cal. 2010) .................................................................. 39
`
`Minnesota Pipe and Equipment Co. v. Ameron Int’l Corp.,
`
`938 F. Supp. 2d 862 (D. Minn. 2013) .............................................................. 49, 50
`
`
`
`ix
`
`
`

`

`CASE 0:20-cv-02071-SRN-ECW Doc. 52 Filed 01/06/21 Page 11 of 67
`
`
`
`
`Mylan Pharm., Inc. v. Celgene Corp.,
`
`No. 14-2094 ES, 2014 WL 12810322 (D.N.J. Dec. 23, 2014) .................... 3, 12, 13
`
`Harney v. Associated Materials, LLC,
`
`No. 3:16-CV-1587-SI, 2018 WL 468303(D. Or. Jan. 18, 2018) .................... App. B
`
`Nobelpharma AB v. Implant Innovations, Inc.,
`
`141 F.3d 1059 (Fed. Cir. 1998) .............................................................................. 17
`
`OrthoAccel Technologies, Inc. v. Devicix, LLC,
`
`Civ. No. 15-1503, 2015 WL 4563134 (D. Minn. Jul. 29, 2015) ............................ 49
`
`Park Irmat Drug Corp. v. Express Scripts Holding Co.,
`
`911 F.3d 505 (8th Cir. 2018) .................................................................................. 12
`
`Partridge v. Stryker Corp.,
`
`No. CIV. 10-1003 MJD/AJB, 2010 WL 4967845 (D. Minn. Dec. 1, 2010) ............ 7
`
`Patterson v. Fid. Nat’l Title Ins. Co.,
`
`Nos. GD-03-021176, GD-05-017476, 2015 Pa. Dist. & Cnty. Dec. LEXIS 479
`
`(Pa. Ct. Com. Pl. Dec. 29, 2015) ............................................................................ 31
`
`Physician Specialty Pharm., LLC v. Prime Therapeutics, LLC,
` No. 18-cv-1044 (MJD/TNL), 2019 WL 5149866 (D. Minn. Aug. 8, 2019) ......... 12
`
`
`Polaris Indus. v. Arctic Cat Inc.,
`
`Civil No. 15-4475, 2017 WL 1180426 (D. Minn. Mar. 29, 2017) ......................... 13
`
`Ports Petrol. Co. v. Nixon,
`
`37 S.W.3d 237 (Mo. 2001) ..................................................................................... 31
`
`Primetime 24 Joint Venture v. Nat’l Broad, Co.,
`
`219 F.3d 92 (2d Cir. 2000) ..................................................................................... 14
`
`Professional Real Estate Investors, Inc. v. Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc.
`508 U.S. 49 (1993) ................................................................................................. 13
`
`
`Ransom v. VFS, Inc.,
`
`918 F. Supp. 2d 888 (D. Minn. 2013) .................................................................... 49
`
`
`
`x
`
`
`

`

`CASE 0:20-cv-02071-SRN-ECW Doc. 52 Filed 01/06/21 Page 12 of 67
`
`
`
`
`Rathe Salvage, Inc. v. R. Brown & Sons, Inc.,
`
`965 A.2d 460 (Vt. 2008)......................................................................................... 32
`
`Razorback Ready Mix Concrete Co. v. Weaver,
`
`761 F.2d 484 (8th Cir. 1985) .................................................................................. 13
`
`Rivera-Muniz v. Horizon Lines Inc.,
`
`737 F. Supp. 2d 57 (D.P.R. 2010) .......................................................................... 24
`
`Sanitary Milk Producers v. Bergjans Farm Dairy, Inc.,
`
`368 F.2d 679 (8th Cir. 1966) .................................................................................. 10
`
`Sergeants Benevolent Ass’n Health & Welfare Fund v. Actavis, PLC,
`
`No. 15 Civ. 6549 (CM), 2018 WL 7197233 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 26, 2018) .... 20, 24, 27
`
`Slover v. Equitable Variable Life Ins. Co.,
`
`443 F. Supp. 2d 1272 (N.D. Okla. 2006) ........................................................ App. B
`
`Spinner Consulting LLC v. Stone Point Capital LLC,
`
`No. 3:19cv1341 (JBA), 2020 WL 5859901 (D. Conn. Sept. 30, 2020) ................. 25
`
`Staley v. Gilead Sciences, Inc.,
`
`446 F. Supp. 3d 578 (N.D. Cal. 2020) .................................................. 25, 29, 30, 31
`
`State v. Duluth Board of Trade,
`
`121 N.W. 395 (Minn. 1909) ..................................................................................... 9
`
`State by Humphrey v. Alpine Air Prod., Inc.,
`
`490 N.W.2d 888 (Minn. Ct. App. 1992) .................................................................. 8
`
`Suffolk Const. Co. v. Benchmark Mechanical Sys., Inc.,
`56 N.E.3d 138 (Mass. 2016) ............................................................................ App. B
`
`
`Thunander v. Uponor, Inc.,
`
`887 F. Supp. 2d 850, 875–76 (D. Minn. 2012) ............................................... App. B
`
`Toth v. Northwest Sav. Bank,
`
`No. GD-12-008014, 2013 WL 8538695 (Pa. Ct. Com. Pl. Mar. 1, 2013) ............. 31
`
`
`
`
`xi
`
`
`

`

`CASE 0:20-cv-02071-SRN-ECW Doc. 52 Filed 01/06/21 Page 13 of 67
`
`
`
`Trustees of Univ. of Pa. v. St. Jude Children’s Research Hosp.,
`
`940 F. Supp. 2d 233 (E.D. Pa. 2013) ...................................................................... 16
`
`United States v. Celgene Corp.,
`
`226 F. Supp. 3d 1032 (C.D. Cal. 2016) ...................................................... 44, 45, 51
`
`U.S., ex rel. Brown v. Celgene Corp.,
`
`No. CV 10-3165-GHK, 2014 WL 3605896 (C.D. Cal. Jul. 10, 2014) .................. 48
`
`USS-POSCO Indus. v. Contra Costa Cnty. Bldg. & Constr. Trades Council, AFL-CIO,
`
`31 F.3d 800 (9th Cir. 1994) .................................................................................... 14
`
`Verizon Commc’ns, Inc. v. Law Offices of Curtis V. Trinko, LLP,
`
`540 U.S. 398 (2004) ............................................................................................... 12
`
`Walker Process Equipment, Inc. v. Food Machinery and Chemical Corp.,
`
`382 U.S. 172 (1965) ......................................................................................... 16, 17
`
`Walkup v. Santander Bank, N.A.,
`
`147 F. Supp. 3d 349 (E.D. Pa. 2015) ...................................................................... 31
`
`Washington v. Grace,
`
`353 F. App’x 678 (3d Cir. 2009) ............................................................................ 26
`
`Waugh Chapel S., LLC v. United Food & Commercial Workers Union Local 27,
`
`728 F.3d 354 (4th Cir. 2013) ............................................................................ 14, 16
`
`Willis Elec. Co., Ltd. v. Polygroup Macau Ltd. (BVI),
`
`437 F. Supp. 3d 693 (D. Minn. 2020) ...................................................................... 7
`
`Wingspan Records, Inc. v. Simone,
`
`No. 12 CIV. 2172 NRB, 2014 WL 2116191 (S.D.N.Y.
`
`May 15, 2014) ................................................................................................. App. B
`
`Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc.,
`
`401 U.S. 321 (1971) ............................................................................................... 37
`
`Statutes
`
`FLA. STAT. §§ 542.15 et seq. ............................................................................................. 23
`
`
`
`xii
`
`
`

`

`CASE 0:20-cv-02071-SRN-ECW Doc. 52 Filed 01/06/21 Page 14 of 67
`
`
`
`FLA. STAT. § 95.11(3)(f) ............................................................................................. App. B
`MASS. GEN. LAWS. ANN. ch. 93 §§ 1-14 ........................................................................... 23
`Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 260, § 5A .................................................................................. App. B
`10 L.P.R.A. § 268 .............................................................................................................. 24
`N.C. GEN STAT. § 75-1.1(a) .............................................................................................. 28
`LA. REV. STAT. § 51:1405 ................................................................................................. 29
`LA. REV. STAT. § 51:1409 ................................................................................................. 29
`ME. REV. STAT. tit. 5 § 206 ............................................................................................... 30
`ME. REV. STAT. tit. 5 § 213 ............................................................................................... 30
`MINN. STAT. § 325D.43 ..................................................................................................... 30
`MINN. STAT. § 325F.68-695 .............................................................................................. 30
`MINN. STAT. § 8.31 ............................................................................................................ 30
`VT. STAT. ANN. tit. 9 § 2451a(a) ....................................................................................... 32
`WYO. STAT. § 40-12-109(b) ....................................................................................... App. B
`
`
`Rules
`
`FED. R. CIV. P. 9(b) ............................................................................................................ 45
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`xiii
`
`
`

`

`CASE 0:20-cv-02071-SRN-ECW Doc. 52 Filed 01/06/21 Page 15 of 67
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs BCBSM, Inc., Health Care Service Corporation (“HCSC”), Molina
`
`Healthcare, Inc., and Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Florida, Inc. (collectively, “Plaintiffs”),
`
`respectfully submit this memorandum in opposition to Celgene Corporation’s and Bristol-
`
`Myers Squibb Company’s (together, “Celgene” or “Defendants”) Motion to Dismiss Pursuant
`
`to Rule 12(b)(6), ECF No. 45.1
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Beginning as late as 2010, if not earlier, Celgene constructed an impenetrable
`
`monopolistic patent fortress and engaged in a multipronged scheme to unlawfully maintain
`
`100% share of the market for Thalomid (thalidomide) and Revlimid (lenalidomide) therapy.
`
`Celgene thereafter interfered with competitors’ efforts to develop, and/or obtain, FDA
`
`approval for generic versions of the blockbuster drugs, thereby preventing price competition
`
`for these drugs. Celgene did this by: (1) manipulating the safety program designed to protect
`
`patients from thalidomide’s and lenalidomide’s teratogenic properties; (2) preventing
`
`pharmacies and ingredient suppliers from acting as alternative sources of samples for these
`
`potential generic incumbents; (3) fraudulently obtaining various patents from the U.S. Patent
`
`and Trademark Office (“PTO”) for compositions and dosages of Thalomid and Revlimid and
`
`
`1 Celgene also filed a separate Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction, or in
`the Alternative, to Transfer Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), ECF No. 39, and Plaintiffs
`respond to that separately. As Plaintiffs argue in Section I of that brief, as a threshold
`matter, before considering Celgene’s Motions to Dismiss and Transfer, this Court should
`determine whether it has subject matter jurisdiction over this case. On October 29, 2020,
`Plaintiffs moved for remand because the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction—Plaintiffs
`assert solely state law claims against non-diverse defendants, and so the action should be
`remanded to Minnesota state court. See Plaintiffs’ Memorandum in Support of its Motion
`to Remand, ECF No. 25.
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`CASE 0:20-cv-02071-SRN-ECW Doc. 52 Filed 01/06/21 Page 16 of 67
`
`
`
`their associated safety distribution protocols; (4) serially commencing bogus patent
`
`infringement lawsuits; (5) filing baseless Citizen Petitions with the U.S. Food and Drug
`
`Administration (“FDA”) to stymie generic approvals; and (6) resolving serial litigation with
`
`confidential, illegal “pay-for-delay” settlement agreements, where generic manufacturers
`
`delayed market entry in exchange for a share of Celgene’s monopolistic profits.2
`
`Plaintiff health insurers purchase prescription drugs and other medical treatments for
`
`the benefit of their members.3 Plaintiffs pay the cost of prescription drugs at the point of sale,
`
`minus any member cost share—in this capacity, Plaintiffs are known as third party payers
`
`(“TPPs”) or “indirect purchasers.”4 As a result of Celgene’s anticompetitive conduct, Plaintiffs
`
`have incurred and continue to incur millions in wrongful payments for Thalomid and
`
`Revlimid prescriptions purchased on behalf of their members.5 Considered holistically,
`
`Plaintiffs’ Complaint alleges viable claims against Celgene under the various states’ laws that
`
`allow TPPs to collect damages and restitution for these types of damages. Celgene has already
`
`advanced, and largely lost, many of the same arguments made in support of dismissal here. In
`
`a putative class action in the District of New Jersey brought on behalf of consumers and TPPs,
`
`Judge Katherine Hayden denied Celgene’s motions to dismiss plaintiffs’ federal antitrust
`
`claims and state antitrust, unfair competition and unjust enrichment claim