We observed arguments last week in the California Supreme Court in Gilead Tenofovir Cases, and quality advocates on both sides put on a great performance. As we previewed last week, the case presents a question with potentially sweeping consequences for product liability law: Does a pharmaceutical manufacturer owe a duty of reasonable care
After nearly three years of litigation winding through California’s appellate courts, the closely watched Gilead Tenofovir Cases is finally set for oral argument before the California Supreme Court on Wednesday, May 6, 2026, at 9:00 a.m. in San Francisco. The case presents a question with potentially sweeping consequences for product liability law: Does a pharmaceutical
This post comes from the non-RS side of the Blog.
Prescription medications for psychiatric conditions fill an important role in modern healthcare. They tend to have labels with lots of information about the risks of various emotional, psychological, and neuroreceptor-mediated conditions, including worsening of the underlying conditions being treated, interactions with other medications or substances
Blair v. Abbvie Inc., 2025 WL. 57198 (W.D. Pa. Jan. 9, 2025), is, from the defense perspective, a favorable opinion dismissing (some with prejudice, some with leave to amend) all counts of the plaintiff’s complaint. The opinion is a bit odd, in a semi, unintentionally-ironic sort of way, because it faults the plaintiff for
Both sides in Gilead v. Superior Court have filed their opening briefs in the California Supreme Court, and the extreme nature of the California Court of Appeal’s opinion extending a manufacturer’s duties has been laid bare. As expected, the defendant convincingly argued that the California Court of Appeal has imposed potentially unlimited liability on product
The California Supreme Court has granted review in Gilead Life Sciences v. Superior Court, the case in which the California Court of Appeal ruled that the defendant could be liable to users of one drug for alleged negligence in connection with a different drug, even while admitting that the drug they actually used
We reported a few months ago on oral argument in the California Court of Appeal in Gilead Life Sciences v. Superior Court, where the parties argued about whether California law recognizes a broad “duty to innovate.” At issue was whether a product manufacturer could be liable to patients taking one drug for failing to
We observed oral argument the other day in a case that could have a significant impact on potential liability under California tort law for pharma companies and all other innovators. In Gilead v. Superior Court, No. A165558 (Cal. Ct. App. First Dist.), a panel of the California Court of Appeal is considering whether a
We have blogged several times about the somewhat esoteric issue of whether intangible items – chiefly computer software, website algorithms, and other electronic information – is treated as a “product” for purposes of imposing strict liability on their creators. It’s an interesting topic; Eric recently wrote a paper on it, and Bexis is putting together a “white paper” for the Product Liability Advisory Council on the same subject. From these exercises we concluded that a 50-state survey on intangibles as “products” for product liability purposes would be both doable and useful.
Continue Reading How the Fifty States View Electronic Data as a “Product”
When this blogger thinks about the “Big Three” her mind goes to This is Us – Kevin, Kate and Randall. Admittedly, that’s not the only “Big Three.” Most people probably go to Great Britain, the United States, and the Soviet Union in World War II. But that alliance certainly was shorter than the Pearsons. Now