In a boost for Gilead Sciences, the California Supreme Court agreed to review a contentious legal theory that thousands of HIV patients have used in a closely watched case to argue drugmakers can be held negligent for failing to develop a medicine.
Earlier this year, a state appeals court ruled the company could be held liable for halting further development of an HIV medicine that was safer than an HIV drug it was already selling. Back in 2004, Gilead explained its decision by maintaining the medicines were not sufficiently different, but internal documents produced in court suggested the company made this move in order to maximize profits.
More than 24,000 people claimed in federal and state court lawsuits that they unnecessarily suffered kidney injury and bone loss because Gilead slow-walked development of the newer and safer HIV drug. The argument advanced a novel theory that focused on the behind-the-scenes decision over product development rather than more typical claims that harm from a medicine was due to a side effect.
