Like most pharmaceutical companies, Gilead Sciences Inc. devotes a huge amount of time and money to making sure its products are safe for patients. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved its drugs to fight HIV, and these medications have worked remarkably well. It then developed the next generation of HIV medications, and those too have worked well. For that, Gilead is being rewarded with lawsuits—lots of them.
Earlier this year, California’s First District Court of Appeal ruled that lawsuits brought by about 24,000 plaintiffs who say they took Gilead’s initial medications can move forward. They allege Gilead can be liable to them—not because those medications were defective at all—but because they claim Gilead did not develop and market its next-generation drugs as quickly as they would have liked.
By this logic, any business that makes a new life-saving product—from a coronary stent to a fire retardant—could be sued for having failed to invent it faster, including when due diligence is important to making sure it works properly. In Gilead’s case, the drugs had to go through several years of clinical testing and get FDA approval before they could be marketed.
Nothing contained in this blog is to be construed as necessarily reflecting the views of the Pacific Research Institute or as an attempt to thwart or aid the passage of any legislation.
Lawsuit Against Drug Company Could Quash Future Cures
Sally C. Pipes
Like most pharmaceutical companies, Gilead Sciences Inc. devotes a huge amount of time and money to making sure its products are safe for patients. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved its drugs to fight HIV, and these medications have worked remarkably well. It then developed the next generation of HIV medications, and those too have worked well. For that, Gilead is being rewarded with lawsuits—lots of them.
Earlier this year, California’s First District Court of Appeal ruled that lawsuits brought by about 24,000 plaintiffs who say they took Gilead’s initial medications can move forward. They allege Gilead can be liable to them—not because those medications were defective at all—but because they claim Gilead did not develop and market its next-generation drugs as quickly as they would have liked.
By this logic, any business that makes a new life-saving product—from a coronary stent to a fire retardant—could be sued for having failed to invent it faster, including when due diligence is important to making sure it works properly. In Gilead’s case, the drugs had to go through several years of clinical testing and get FDA approval before they could be marketed.
Click to read the full article in Forbes.
Nothing contained in this blog is to be construed as necessarily reflecting the views of the Pacific Research Institute or as an attempt to thwart or aid the passage of any legislation.