United States: Generic Drug Manufacturers To Face Failure-To-Warn Claims In California

Last Updated: February 2 2015
Article by Erin M. Bosman and Julie Y. Park

On January 20, 2015, the Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal involving failure-to-warn claims against generic pharmaceutical manufacturers. Teva Pharms. USA Inc. v. Super. Ct., No. 13-956, 2015 WL 231967 (U.S. Jan. 20, 2015). This leaves intact the California Court of Appeal's ruling and provides plaintiffs claiming injury from generic drugs with a trifecta of liability theories—failure to update, failure to communicate, and innovator liability.


The Teva case arose out of plaintiffs' use of the drug alendronate, the generic form of the branded drug Fosamax, a drug indicated for treating osteoporosis. Multiple plaintiffs alleged that they suffered femur fractures from prolonged use of the drug and filed suit against the manufacturers of the brand and generic drugs. After coordination of the cases in Orange County Superior Court, the parties agreed to a test case (brought by Olga Pikerie) to resolve whether claims against the generic manufacturers were preempted by federal law.

The trial court held that plaintiffs had adequately stated causes of action for failing to make timely label changes and failing to communicate safety information to healthcare providers via Dear Doctor letters. The generic defendants filed a petition for a writ of mandate and/or prohibition, which was denied by the California Court of Appeal. Teva Pharms. USA, Inc. v. Super. Ct., 217 Cal. App. 4th 96 (2013), review denied (Sept. 25, 2013) ("Pikerie").

The California Supreme Court declined to hear the defendants' appeal, and they petitioned the Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari. The Court requested the views of the Solicitor General, who recommended in December 2014 that the Court deny defendants' petition.


The California Court of Appeal's opinion held that plaintiffs properly pleaded claims against the generic defendants for (1) failure to update and (2) failure to communicate, and that neither of these claims were preempted under the reasoning set forth by the Supreme Court in PLIVA, Inc. v. Mensing, 131 S. Ct. 2567 (2011).

1. Failure to Update

Since the Supreme Court decided Mensing, plaintiffs have sought new avenues of liability for injuries cause by generic drugs. In large part, generic manufacturers are immune from failure-to-warn claims because federal law prohibits them from unilaterally updating their labels, triggering impossibility preemption. 21 U.S.C. § 355(j)(2)(A)(v) (generic labels must be "the same as" those of their branded equivalents).

However, some courts, including the Pikerie court, have held that the federal requirement of "sameness" that gives rise to impossibility preemption also gives rise to a federal standard of care for state-law failure-to-warn claims. Indeed, the Pikerie court adopted the reasoning of the Sixth Circuit, which was the first federal circuit court of appeals to hold that failure-to-update claims survived Mensing preemption. See Fulgenzi v. PLIVA, Inc., 711 F.3d 578 (6th Cir. 2013). Quoting Fulgenzi, the Pikerie court noted that "not only could [generic defendants] have independently updated [their] labeling to match that of the branded manufacturer . . . , but [they] had a federal duty to do so." 217 Cal. App. 4th at 108. Thus, impossibility preemption did not apply.

Defendants argued that failure-to-update claims could not be pled if plaintiff also alleged that label changes after her exposure were inadequate. But the court found that California's pleading standards permitted plaintiff to plead inconsistent facts. Id. at 109-110. This is consistent with the reasoning of the Fulgenzi court, which also permitted plaintiff's claim to proceed over defendants' argument that "there is no such thing as a 'failure-to-inadequately-warn" claim. 711 F.3d at 587.

The Pikerie court also disagreed with defendants' contention that the failure-to-update claims were preempted as either a fraud-on-the-FDA claim or a private attempt to enforce the Food, Drug & Cosmetic Act, under the reasoning of Buckman Co. v. Plaintiffs' Legal Comm., 531 U.S. 341 (2001). Instead, plaintiff's claims were based on "state law tort principles of a drug manufacturer's duty to the consumers of its product." 217 Cal. App. 4th at 111.

2. Failure to Communicate

Similarly, the Court of Appeal held that failure-to-communicate claims were not preempted. The Pikerie court determined that "[i]t would not have been impossible for the [generic defendants] to send Dear Doctor letters advising health care professionals of the risks identified in the 2010 and 2011 Fosamax label changes. Therefore, the impossibility preemption doctrine does not bar such claims." Id. at 113.

Interestingly, courts have vehemently disagreed on the meaning of federal regulations governing Dear Doctor letters, specifically as they were interpreted by FDA in the Solicitor General's amicus brief in Mensing. Citing the Solicitor General's brief, the Court stated: "A Dear Doctor letter that contained substantial new warning information would not be consistent with the drug's approved labeling. Moreover, if generic drug manufacturers, but not the brand-name manufacturer, sent such letters, that would inaccurately imply a therapeutic difference between the brand and generic drugs and thus could be impermissibly 'misleading.'" Mensing, 131 S. Ct. at 2576.

Several courts have interpreted this language to mean that generic drug manufacturers cannot send Dear Doctor letters unless the brand manufacturer has already sent an identical letter. See, e.g., Morris v. PLIVA, Inc., 713 F.3d 774, 777 (5th Cir. 2013); Guarino v. Wyeth, LLC, 719 F.3d 1245, 1249-50 (11th Cir. 2013); In re Darvocet, Darvon, & Propoxyphene Products Liab. Litig., 756 F.3d 917, 932-33 (6th Cir. 2014).

But notably, in his invitation brief in Pikerie, the Solicitor General adopted the Pikerie plaintiff's interpretation of the Dear Doctor regulations. See Brief for the United States as Amicus Curiae at 20-23, Teva Pharms. USA, Inc. v. Super. Ct., No. 13-956 (U.S. Dec. 16, 2014). Specifically, he stated that once FDA has approved a generic manufacturer's update, "the generic manufacturer may 'unilaterally' disseminate a [Dear Doctor] letter to communicate the new labeling warnings even if the brand-name manufacturer has not done so . . . . Such letters would not imply any difference between the generic and brand-name drugs or otherwise run afoul of FDA's regulatory requirements." Id. at 21-22.


In recommending that the Court deny the generic defendants' petition, the Solicitor General counseled that "[r]eview of the preemption issues in this case would also be premature in light of pending FDA regulatory changes. FDA has proposed a regulation that would 'enable ANDA holders to update product labeling promptly . . . , irrespective of whether the revised labeling differs from that of the [brand-name drug].'" Brief for U.S. at 23 (quoting 78 Fed. Reg. 67,985, 67,986 (Nov. 13, 2013)).

The Solicitor General affirmatively quoted FDA's explanation that "these changes, if adopted, 'may eliminate the preemption of certain failure-to-warn claims with respect to generic drugs.'" Id. (quoting 78 Fed. Reg. at 67,989). But the proposed rule, which was supposed to be finalized in late 2014, faced vocal opposition and now the final rule is slated for publication in late 2015.1 In light of the comments opposing the proposed rule, no one knows what form the final rule will take.


Until FDA resolves the regulatory uncertainty surrounding labeling updates for generic drugs, Pikerie is binding authority for some California courts and is likely to be found highly persuasive by many others. Therefore, we expect that in California many plaintiffs will survive challenges to pleadings alleging liability for failure to update and failure to communicate.

California is no stranger to expansive theories of liability for drug-related injuries. In 2008, a California Court of Appeals held that a brand drug manufacturer could be liable to a patient who took a generic drug made by a different manufacturer. Conte v. Wyeth, Inc., 168 Cal. App. 4th 89 (2008). There, the court allowed misrepresentation claims to proceed against the brand drug manufacturer because, due to the "sameness" requirement imposed on generic manufacturers, a brand manufacturer could "reasonably foresee" that doctors would rely on the brand label in prescribing its generic version. Id. at 111.

Between Pikerie and Conte, California now has one of the most permissive legal landscapes in the country with respect to providing relief to plaintiffs who claim injury from generic drugs. We anticipate heated litigation over these issues on several fronts as companies try to escape California's litigious atmosphere, whether by challenging personal jurisdiction in California or by attacking these claims on the merits and seeking review by the California Supreme Court in the hopes that the holdings in these opinions would be overturned. We will continue to monitor these developments as they unfold.


1 See http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/eAgendaViewRule?pubId=201410&RIN=0910-AG94.

Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Morrison & Foerster LLP. All rights reserved

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Erin M. Bosman
Julie Y. Park
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
In association with
Related Topics
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Related Articles
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions