Court Rejects ‘Innovator Liability’ in Generic Drug Case

Share

An Idaho district court has rejected the theory of “innovator liability” under which a branded drug manufacturer can be held liable for injuries caused by a generic version of its drug. A Washington Legal Foundation (WLF) Legal Pulse reports that the court ruled that plaintiffs could not sue Novartis for injuries caused by a generic form of its premature labor drug Brethine.

The plaintiffs said that the generic form of Brethine (terbutaline sulfate) caused harm to the mother and her child, and brought six causes of action against Novartis, including negligent failure to warn and negligence per se.

Novartis moved to dismiss the suit for lack of personal jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim. The plaintiffs alleged that the generic equivalent caused the injury, although the complaint does not state who manufactured the generic in question. The theory of innovator liability is based on the notion that the generic manufacturer has no control over the labeling contents.

Before analyzing each of the six counts raised by the plaintiffs, the court “made clear that one ‘crucial fact’ prevailed throughout the complaint: ‘Novartis did not manufacture the drug that caused the injuries,’” WLF says.

“In order for a brand-name manufacturer to be liable for a plaintiff’s harms,” the article says, “the manufacturer must owe a duty of care to the plaintiff. Foreseeability of harm determines the scope of a duty; it does not determine whether one actually exists.”

WLF says decisions such as this one should remind courts to leave the expansion of drug-labeling requirements to Congress and federal regulators.

Read more