Plaintiffs alleged that Gilead was researching two alternative drugs to treat HIV and both passed Phase III trials with approximately equal effectiveness in HIV treatment but that Gilead chose to pursue the alternative that carried a risk of bone and kidney side effects instead of the alternative because doing so allowed it greater financial returns on its patent for the chosen drug.  This decision holds that even without proving that the chosen drug was defective, plaintiffs, who suffered the chosen drug’s side effects, can state a negligence claim against Gilead for failing to commercialize the safer alternative drug.  A  manufacturer’s duty of reasonable care can extend more broadly than the duty to make a non-defective product.  So proof of defect is not a prerequisite for recovery in negligence.  However, the court holds that when a manufacturer has an FDA-approved drug that is not defective and has adequate warnings of side effects on its label, it has no duty of care to pursue commercialization of an alternative, allegedly safer, drug until Phase III trials have established the alternative drug’s safety and effectiveness.  However, the decision holds Gilead was entitled to summary adjudication of plaintiffs’ claim for fraudulent concealment.  A drug manufacturer owes no duty to consumers of its drugs to disclose the existence of alternative, safer drugs.