California Supreme Court Denies “Duty To Innovate” Arguments by Plaintiffs, And Extends Rowland Exceptions To Drug Manufactures For The First Time in The Gilead Tenofovir Cases

By Lauren J. Arias

California Supreme Court Denies “Duty To Innovate” Arguments by Plaintiffs, And Extends Rowland Exceptions To Drug Manufactures For The First Time in The Gilead Tenofovir Cases

On August 3, 2026, the California Supreme Court ruled in favor of the drug manufacturer Gilead Sciences in the JCCP Gilead Tenofovir Cases, holding that drug manufacturers do not owe a legal duty to expedite the development of safer alternative drugs if their current product is not defective.

Plaintiffs in the Gilead Tenofovir Cases attempted to establish a “duty to innovate” by arguing that the drug manufacturer acted negligently in delaying development of its alternative drug with less side effects than its current drug deemed non-defective. The California Supreme Court categorically denied this “duty to innovate” argument, and held it is not a viable standard for Plaintiffs to establish negligence. Instead, the Court ruled that Gilead Sciences had not breached any duty, and were not negligent under consideration of the Rowland exceptions. This decision by the California Supreme Court extends Rowland to a drug manufacturer for the first time since its establishment in Rowland v. Christian (1968).

What is the Rowland Exception?

Rowland v. Christian (1968) created an exception for defendants to the basic duty of ordinary care in avoiding to injury to others. The Rowland exception can only be used by judges, not juries, and considers 7 public policy factors to decide if an entire category of cases should have a limit to the general duty of ordinary care in light of its factors.

The 7 Rowland factors namely are (1) foreseeability, (2) certainty of injury, (3) causal connection, (4) moral blame, (5) prevention of future harm, (6) burden on defendant and public, and (7) insurability against the harm.

It was under consideration of these 7 factors that the California Supreme Court deemed that Gilead Sciences did not owe a duty to expedite the release of its newer alternative drug with less side effects when the currently available drug was deemed non-defective.

Implications

While the Plaintiffs in the Gilead Tenofovir Cases did not plead that the currently available drug was defective, but that rather, Gilead Sciences was negligent in delaying release of its new drug with less side effects, the California Supreme Court’s extension of Rowland to a drug manufacturer changes the legal landscape. In light of the Court’s ruling in the Gilead Tenofovir Cases, drug manufacturers now have legal precedent to extend the Rowland exceptions to their industry, and Plaintiffs have categorically been denied from establishing a “duty to innovate” in California courts.