Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority v. Gilead Sciences, Inc.
102 F. Supp. 3d 688
E.D. Pa.2015Background
- Defendant Gilead markets Sovaldi and Harvoni for Hepatitis C; twelve-week courses cost $84k and $94.5k respectively.
- Plaintiffs SEPTA, Jane Doe, and John Doe sue on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated.
- Allegations include ACA §1557 discrimination, unjust enrichment, breach of implied duty of good faith, and California §17200 claims.
- Amended Complaint seeks class certification and relief against Gilead’s pricing scheme.
- Court has federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §1331 and supplemental jurisdiction under §1367; 12(b)(6) standard applied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §1557 creates a private right of action | Gilead pricing violates §1557 rights | No private right; pricing not discrimination | §1557 creates a private right with remedies from incorporated statutes. |
| Disability discrimination under §1557/§504 | Doe claims disability-based denial of benefits | Plaintiffs fail to show disability or discrimination | No viable §504/§1557 disability discrimination claim. |
| Race discrimination under §1557/Title VI | Pricing harms minorities; disparate impact alleged | No evidence of intentional or disparate-impact discrimination | No viable Title VI discrimination claim; dismissed. |
| Preemption by federal patent law over state unjust enrichment/§17200 claims | State claims valid alongside patent rights | Preempted where pricing balance governed by patent law | State claims preempted; dismissal proper. |
| Breach of implied duty of good faith and fair dealing; unjust enrichment; §17200 viability | Discretionary pricing breached good faith; unjust enrichment justified | No independent contract breach shown; preemption applies | Counts III, I, and IV–V dismissed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lamie v. United States Tr., 540 U.S. 526 (U.S. (2004)) (interprets plain-language statutory interpretation authority)
- Gonzaga Univ. v. Doe, 536 U.S. 273 (U.S. (2002)) (private rights require explicit rights-creating terms)
- Alexander v. Sandoval, 532 U.S. 275 (U.S. (2001)) (private right of action requires intent for private remedy)
- Blunt v. Lower Merion Sch. Dist., 767 F.3d 247 (3d Cir. 2014) (standards for discrimination claims under Title VI)
- Biotechnology Indus. Org. v. District of Columbia, 496 F.3d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (preemption of state pricing acts by patent law)
- Three Rivers Ctr. for Indep. Living v. Housing Auth. of Pittsburgh, 382 F.3d 412 (3d Cir. 2004) (remedies/rights imported when incorporating other statutes)
- Bonito Boats, Inc. v. Thunder Craft Boats, Inc., 489 U.S. 141 (U.S. (1989)) (patent law balance between exclusion and access)
- In re Wellbutrin XL Antitrust Litig., 260 F.R.D. 143 (E.D. Pa. 2009) (unjust enrichment generally not standalone under federal common law)