Pharmaceutical company Gilead Sciences may pay $246 million to settle a lawsuit over the delay in the release of generic drugs


On September 25, 2023, the Federal Court of San Francisco (USA) approved a $246.75 million class action settlement between Gilead Sciences and KPH Health Services.

The settlement follows a lengthy antitrust trial in Northern California (USA). Gilead was accused of colluding with Teva Pharmaceuticals to allegedly slow down the process of bringing generic versions of HIV drugs to market.

According to a 2019 class action lawsuit, Gilead inflated the prices of HIV drugs while restricting the ability of any generic drug to enter the market through an alleged agreement with Teva, which agreed to “delay marketing of its generic products.” The agreement allowed Gilead to allegedly maintain a “monopoly on the market for drugs that constitute the current HIV treatment regimen.” According to the complaint, Gilead’s actions violated Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act by forcing customers to pay more for branded HIV medications because generics were not available. “The Sherman Act is an 1890 antitrust law that mandates the rule of free competition among those engaged in commerce.

However, at the end of June, Gilead won a jury trial, and the jury decided that the settlement agreement between Teva and Gilead did not violate antitrust laws and was not a reverse payment.

In August, KPH Health Services officially filed a class action lawsuit against Gilead and its subsidiaries. On Monday, Senior U.S. District Judge Edward Chen granted preliminary approval of the lawsuit. Under the terms of the settlement agreement, Gilead will pay $246.75 million to a settlement fund for the benefit of direct customers, namely those patients who purchased Atripla or Truvada, or any of the generics from Gilead, its subsidiaries or a generic drug manufacturer from February 2018 until the date of the class certification order. In exchange for the compensation, the plaintiff class will dismiss their lawsuit against Gilead and its subsidiaries.

“Nothing in the settlement agreement or any document related to the settlement shall be deemed an admission, admission, or concession by Gilead with respect to any claim that has been or could have been asserted against Gilead in connection with these claims,” Chen wrote in his order.

“No such matter shall constitute, be construed or be deemed evidence or an admission or concession by KPH that any allegations or claims against Gilead are without merit.”


Scroll to Top