A California federal judge recently displayed skepticism towards a retrial request by purchasers of HIV medication. The request followed the absolution of Gilead Sciences and Teva Pharmaceuticals from allegations of contriving an illegal agreement to postpone the release of generic equivalents of their drugs. The judge suggested that any issues pertaining to the jury’s adherence to instructions can be considered forfeited.
The purchasers had filed an antitrust lawsuit against Gilead and Teva, alleging that both companies had entered into an illicit agreement to delay the debut of generic versions of vital HIV drugs. However, the legal body had previously ruled in favor of the pharmaceutical firms.
The plaintiffs believe they are entitled to a new trial, arguing that the jury didn’t follow the court’s instructions. Nevertheless, the presiding judge seemed to take a divergent view, hinting that this argument might no longer be valid.
For a deeper understanding of the case, please refer to the original Law360 coverage.