Court: Can generic makers be sued for drug flaws?

(AP)—The Supreme Court will decide whether generic drug manufacturers can be held responsible in state courts for possible design defects that are in the brand-name medicine they are copying.

The high court on Friday agreed to hear an appeal from Philadelphia-based Mutual Pharmaceutical, manufacturer of the generic, anti- sulindac.

Karen Bartlett was awarded $21.6 million after claiming a design defect in sulindac caused blindness and severe burning of her skin and . But Mutual says they shouldn't have to pay because they made sulindac exactly the same way as its brand-name equivalent, Clinoril, as required by federal law.

The court last year said are not responsible for failing to warn consumers of possible side effects if they copy the exact warnings from their brand-name equivalents.

not rated yet
add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Supreme Court ruling supports generic drug makers

Apr 18, 2012

The US Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that generic drug makers can challenge big-name pharmaceutical firms in court to stop them from broadening the scope of their patent descriptions.

Pharmaceutical intellectual property laws need reform

Nov 07, 2011

Canada's pharmaceutical intellectual property laws need major reform to encourage and protect innovation in developing new drugs, states an analysis in CMAJ (Canadian Medical Association Journal).

Generics controversy issue widens

Jun 05, 2006

A dispute between the U.S. Justice Department and Federal Trade Commission over generic drugs is reportedly widening with implications for the drug firms.

Recommended for you

Viagra ads target women for first time

22 hours ago

The maker of the world's top-selling erectile dysfunction drug on Tuesday will begin airing the first Viagra TV commercial in America that targets the less-obvious sufferers of the sexual condition: women.

User comments