Case Status
Case Caption
Bristol Myers Squibb Co. v. Becerra et al., Janssen Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Becerra et al., Dayton Area Chamber of Commerce, et al. v. Becerra, et al., Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Becerra et al., Novo Nordisk Inc. et al. v. Becerra, et al
U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey
U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut
Case Number
3:23-cv-3335-ZNQ-JBD, 3:23-cv-3818-ZNQ-JBD, 3:23-cv-01103-RNC
Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals Inc.
Bristol Myers Squibb Company
Dayton Area Chamber of Commerce
Janssen Pharmaceuticals Inc.
Novo Nordisk Inc. et al.
Novartis Pharmaceutical Corp.
File Date


More than four dozen members of the legal academic community signed their names to a set of amicus briefs filed by attorneys at Hagens Berman in ongoing lawsuits regarding the Inflation Reduction Act’s (IRA) new Medicare Drug Pricing Program and alleged threats to accessibility of affordable lifesaving prescription medications. The firm also represents two additional parties, the Center for American Progress (CAP) and the NAACP on amicus briefs regarding the impact of this drug pricing program on health equity in these  cases.


For more than 20 years, Hagens Berman has dedicated itself to fighting unlawful behavior that bars access to lifesaving medicines and drives up the price of prescription drugs. The firm’s history of combating rising costs of prescription drugs is strengthened by its new recruits, who have been the driving force of Hagens Berman’s supporting efforts in the IRA case against Bristol Myers Squibb and Janssen. In total, the firm represents three different parties on two briefs in six different cases against Bristol Myers Squibb Company, Janssen Pharmaceuticals Inc., Dayton Area Chamber of Commerce et al., and Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals Inc., Novo Nordisk Inc., and Novartis Pharmaceutical Corp.

The law scholar amicus brief details the constitutionality of government price negotiations and price regulations, and the federal government’s use of patents, as well as the far-reaching consequences of a ruling in favor of BMS and Janssen.

The CAP and NAACP brief explains how the IRA’s new Medicare drug pricing program will improve health equity for communities of color, the LGBTQI+ community, the elderly, people living with disabilities, and women.

The introduction of one law scholars’ brief states, “The most decisive driver of high drug prices are the monopoly rights that governments grant to drug makers, allowing them to exclude competitors and raise prices.”


The landmark litigation against the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services challenges the constitutionality of the IRA to negotiate drug prices following the Biden administration's efforts to curtail spiking drug costs and consumer costs when President Biden signed the Inflation Reduction Act into law on Aug. 16, 2022.

According to the U.S. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, the new law requires drug companies that raise their drug prices faster than the rate of inflation to pay Medicare a rebate: “This will lead to a stronger Medicare for current and future enrollees and discourage unreasonable price increases by drug companies.”

Litigation against the government regarding IRA began when drugmaker Merck & Co. argued it stands to suffer harm from the price negotiations, alleging that the IRA price negotiations violate the company's First and Fifth Amendments. Drug makers pushing back allegedly seek to be above the law, arguing a constitutional right to the monopoly prices and excessive profits they have been charging and collecting from the government.

“Pharmaceutical companies enjoy some of the highest profit margins in the United States—and will continue to do so even after full implementation of this program,” a legal scholars’ amicus brief states.


Hagens Berman believes action must be taken for the millions of people living without access to affordable lifesaving prescription medications. “The courts have long recognized that the federal government, like any private party, is authorized to negotiate the prices of the goods it purchases without running afoul of the Takings Clause. There is no constitutional entitlement to government purchase of goods at prices a seller unilaterally dictates,” reads the amicus brief.


Hagens Berman is one of the most successful plaintiff litigation law firms in the U.S. taking on pharmaceutical companies, and has achieved total settlements valued at more than $320 billion, including settlements with some of Big Pharma’s largest sellers and manufacturers over antitrust schemes, pay-for-delay, IP shams and other forms of wrongdoing that drive up the costs of prescription drugs for people who need them. The firm also achieved the top two antitrust settlements to reach final approval in 2022, totaling nearly $800 million: In Re Glumetza Antitrust Litigation and In re Ranbaxy Generic Drug Application Antitrust Litigation, per the 2022 Antitrust Annual Report published by Huntington Bank and UC Law SF’s Center for Litigation and Courts.


Amicus Brief Filed

Hagens Berman purchases advertisements on search engines, social media sites and other websites. Transmission of the information contained or available through this website is not intended to create, and receipt does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. If you seek legal advice or representation by Hagens Berman, you must first enter a formal agreement. All information contained in any transmission is confidential and Hagens Berman agrees to protect information against unauthorized use, publication or disclosure. This site is regulated by the Washington Rules of Professional Conduct.