In a significant legal victory, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc. has won a $271.2 million punitive damages award from a federal jury in Delaware, concluding a closely watched antitrust suit against rival pharmaceutical giant Amgen Inc.

The jury found that Amgen engaged in anti-competitive conduct by bundling its cholesterol-lowering drug Repatha with rebate incentives tied to two other blockbuster medications, Enbrel and Otezla. The scheme allegedly forced pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) to favor Repatha over Regeneron’s lower-priced alternative, Praluent, in violation of federal and state antitrust laws.

The verdict — reached after seven days of trial before U.S. District Judge Jennifer L. Hall — marks a major win for Regeneron on 10 out of 11 claims, including violations of the Sherman Act, the Clayton Act, and multiple state-level antitrust laws. The jury concluded that Amgen unlawfully monopolized the market and unreasonably restrained trade, with the conduct described by Regeneron as "coercive" and unprecedented in the cholesterol drug market.

The jury also found Amgen guilty of tortious interference with prospective business relations, adding weight to Regeneron’s claim that the bundling practice harmed competition and distorted the pricing landscape in the cholesterol treatment space.

The total punitive damages award of $271.2 million stems from an initial damages finding of $135.6 million, which was doubled by the jury based on its determination of Amgen’s conduct as egregious. A decision is still pending on whether Regeneron will seek treble damages on eligible counts, which could raise the total amount further.

The lawsuit was originally filed in 2022 and comes after prior legal battles between the two pharmaceutical companies over patent rights and market access.

Amgen, with a market capitalization of $142 billion, was accused of leveraging its market power to pressure PBMs through "massive, unavoidable bundled rebates," making it financially untenable for them to offer Regeneron’s Praluent.

Counsel for Regeneron included Jonathan D. Polkes of White & Case LLP, who told the jury that Amgen's bundling practices were “against the rules” and designed to squeeze Regeneron out of the market. Amgen’s defense argued that Regeneron simply lost out due to stronger competition and investment.

Regeneron was represented by attorneys from White & Case LLP, Wilks Law Firm, Weil Gotshal & Manges LLP, and Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP. Amgen was represented by teams from Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP and Young Conaway Stargatt & Taylor LLP.

Case Information:
Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Amgen Inc.
Case No. 1:22-cv-00697
U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware