Aug. 17, 2026
No duty to innovate: California Supreme Court rejects new negligence theory
The California Supreme Court rejected a novel "duty to innovate" theory, holding that a drug manufacturer had no duty to develop and commercialize an allegedly safer alternative to an FDA-approved, non-defective drug and warning that such liability could undermine pharmaceutical innovation.
Steven J. Boranian
Partner
Reed Smith LLP
101 Second St
San Francisco , CA 94105
Phone: (415) 543-8700
Email: sboranian@reedsmith.com
The California Supreme Court has handed down its long-awaited decision in Gilead Tenofovir Cases, 2026 DJDAR 6446 (Cal. S. Ct., filed Aug. 3, 2026), and the Court held that a prescription pharmaceutical manufacturer owes no duty of care when deciding whether and when to develop an allegedly safer alternative medication to...
For only $95 a month (the price of 2 article purchases)
Receive unlimited article access and full access to our archives,
Daily Appellate Report, award winning columns, and our
Verdicts and Settlements.
Or
$895, but save $100 when you subscribe today… Just $795 for the first year!
Or access this article for $45
(Purchase provides 7-day access to this article. Printing, posting or downloading is not allowed.)
Already a subscriber?
Sign In