Use Preemption in ‘Failure-to-Market’ Cases: PRI
A Pacific Research Institute white paper explains why it believes drug manufacturers should present preemption claims when they are charged under state laws with failing to market as quickly as possible a drug that allegedly presents fewer side effects than other FDA-approved drugs already on the market. The paper says the concern arises from a California appeals court decision that held that drug companies have a duty to develop and bring to market drugs that are supposedly safer and more effective than another approved drug the company already sells.
The ruling “threatens to put drug companies in a no-win situation, in which they can be held liable in tort for both the drugs they sell and for those they decline to bring to market,” PRI says. “This additional hurdle adds cost to the drug development process while, at the same time, giving drug companies one of two undesirable incentives: either seek approval prematurely or abandon a promising line of research altogether.”
The case involves two Gilead HIV drugs — TAF (tenofovir alafedamide) and TDF (tenofovir disoproxil fumarate).
PRI says that while private attorneys can and should raise preemption arguments in response to failure-to-market claims, the federal government should address the issue through legislation if necessary. The paper recommends that the federal government intervene in all failure-to-market cases if they are remanded to trial.