Several companies involved with the production of opioid-addiction medication Suboxone have been accused of violating Pennsylvania state and federal antitrust laws.

Reckitt Benckiser Pharmaceuticals and Indivior allegedly conspired with MonoSol Rx to change Suboxone's formula in order to prevent the development of generic versions of the medication. Suboxone was originally produced in a tablet form, but was changed to a film that dissolves in the mouth.Attorney General Bruce R. Beemer, along with 35 other attorneys general, filed the lawsuit in U.S. District Court for the Eastern Division of Pennsylvania. Beemer and company are alleging that pharmaceutical companies violated the federal Sherman Act, along with state antitrust laws. Counts of monopolization and illegal restraint of trade were made.Brand-name Suboxone was introduced by Reckitt in 2002, with standard exclusivity protection that lasted for seven years.During this time frame, competitors were barred from developing generic equivalents of the medication.By 2009, generic versions of Suboxone should have come onto the market, allowing for cheaper versions than the brand name. However, Reckitt and MonoSol allegedly prevented this measure by developing the dissolving film version, and then heavily promoting it over the original tablet.Eventually, prescriptions for the film formula overtook that of the tablet, at which point Reckitt removed the tablet version from the U.S. market.The attorneys general are accusing the companies of "product hopping," where small changes are made to a product in order to extend patent protection, and therefore prevent the introduction of generic equivalents. The suit cites that Reckitt's new Suboxone formula offered no real advantage to the tablet, which Reckitt had allegedly indicated had safety concerns.The attorneys general are alleging that patients using Suboxone paid artificially high prices since 2009 due to these measures. Annual sales for Suboxone during that particular time frame exceed $1 billion.Thirty-five other states and territories are joining in the suit, which requests that the court stop the respective companies from partaking in anticompetitive actions, restore the opportunity for competition, and to compensate consumers and states affected by the supposed monopoly, plus cover costs and fees.