Law Center Search Results

The NAM filed a brief urging the California Supreme Court to reject “innovator liability,” a theory that seeks to hold pharmaceutical manufacturers of brand name drug products liable for injuries caused by competing generic products. The issue in this case is whether the brand name manufacturer of a pharmaceutical drug that divested all ownership interest in the drug can be held liable for injuries caused years later by another manufacturer’s generic version of that drug. The ruling could subject a manufacturer that invents a product to perpetual liability for harms caused, not by its own product, but for comparable products made and sold by entirely different businesses. The NAM’s brief argued that innovator liability should not be allowed to circumvent fundamental principles of liability law against product manufacturers, and the court should follow other federal and state courts in rejecting innovator liability. Unfortunately, the court held that the brand-name drug manufacturer can be liable for alleged harms caused by the generic version sold by a third party.