Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner, 387 U.S. 136 (1967), was a case heard before the United States Supreme Court. The Court held that drug companies were not prohibited by the ripeness doctrine from challenging a U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulation requiring a prescription drug's generic name to appear on all related printed materials. The government argued that the case was not ripe because the regulation had yet to be enforced. That argument failed as the Court found the issues to be fit for judicial resolution, and that the drug companies would experience substantial hardship if denied a pre-enforcement challenge to the statute. Prosecution for non-compliance was likely, civil and criminal penalties could be imposed, and the drug companies would suffer reputational damage if required to violate the regulation before challenging it in court.

This article needs additional citations for verification. (March 2023)

Quick Facts Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner, Argued January 16, 1967 Decided May 22, 1967 ...

Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued January 16, 1967 Decided May 22, 1967
Full case name	Abbott Laboratories, et al. v. Gardner, Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare, et al.
Citations	387 U.S. 136 (more) 87 S. Ct. 1507; 18 L. Ed. 2d 681; 1967 U.S. LEXIS 2974
Holding
Drug companies were not prohibited by the ripeness doctrine from challenging an FDA regulation requiring a prescription drug's generic name to appear on all related printed materials.
Court membership
Chief Justice Earl Warren Associate Justices Hugo Black · William O. Douglas Tom C. Clark · John M. Harlan II William J. Brennan Jr. · Potter Stewart Byron White · Abe Fortas
Case opinions
Majority	Harlan, joined by Black, Douglas, Stewart, White
Dissent	Fortas, joined by Warren, Clark
Dissent	Clark
Brennan took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.
Laws applied
Administrative Procedure Act

Close

Wikisource has original text related to this article:

Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner

The action was brought by individuals and associations accounting for more than 90% of the prescription drug industry.^[1] Specifically, the petitioners challenged the decision by the Commissioner of Food and Drug to promulgate the "established name" rule pursuant to a statute granted by Congress. After inviting and considering comments submitted by interested parties, the Commissioner established the following rule:

If the label or labeling of a prescription drug bears a proprietary name or designation for the drug or any ingredient thereof, the established name, if such there be, corresponding, to such proprietary name or designation, shall accompany each appearance of such proprietary name or designation.