Gilead Sciences, Inc. v. Meritain Health, Inc.
Split Score
What is a Split Score?
This score (0-100) indicates how likely this case is to be reviewed by the Supreme Court based on:
Case Summary
Disposition
Affirmed
The Fourth Circuit affirmed a preliminary injunction barring several alternative-funding actors and administrators from importing and selling foreign-market versions of Gilead HIV drugs in the United States. The court held that the imported drugs were not “genuine” for Lanham Act purposes because they bore materially different labeling and bypassed Gilead’s quality-control system, and that the service providers were contributorily liable despite lacking direct control over the drugs.
Circuit Split Identified
Legal Issue
Whether a service provider’s contributory-trademark-infringement liability under the Lanham Act requires proof that the provider exercised “direct control and monitoring” over the instrumentality of the infringement, in addition to the inducement/knowledge test of Inwood Laboratories.
Circuit Positions
Service provider is contributorily liable only if it exercised direct control and monitoring over the instrumentality of infringement (additional element beyond Inwood).
Inwood’s inducement-or-knowledge test suffices; no separate direct-control element for service providers.
Conflict Summary
The Ninth Circuit has added a separate 'direct control and monitoring' element for service providers, while the Fourth Circuit (in this opinion) and other circuits apply only the two-part Inwood inducement-or-knowledge standard and reject any additional control requirement.