"There were a dozen antipsychotics that were just as good as Risperdal and cost a fraction" as much, he told the jury in his opening statement last week.
Janssen has denied misleading Pennsylvania about Risperdal.
"Janssen has always been committed to ethical business practices," Greg Panico, a spokesman for Janssen, said in a written statement. "We are fully prepared to defend against these claims, which we think are without merit."
The case is among numerous claims that have been brought against Janssen for allegedly marketing Risperdal to treat conditions for which the drug had not been approved, or for allegedly understating its shortcomings.
The drug was part of a new generation of antipsychotics introduced in the early 1990s to treat severe mental illnesses, such as schizophrenia and bipolar disorder.
Over time, Risperdal was also prescribed for a variety of other ailments for which it had not been approved, including dementia, aggression, and behavior problems.
Such unapproved applications for a drug are known as "off-label uses." They are acceptable if prescribed by doctors. The drug manufacturer, however, is not permitted by the FDA to market products for off-label uses.
Although some states are accusing the company of off-label marketing, that is not part of Pennsylvania's case.
One twist in the case is the Rendell administration's decision to use the Texas firm Bailey, Perrin, Bailey L.L.P. to represent the state on a contingency basis. Bailey's founder, F. Kenneth Bailey, made more than $91,000 in campaign contributions to Gov. Rendell. Rendell has denied any impropriety. Janssen has asked the state Supreme Court bar the state from using the Texas firm. The court has not ruled yet on the request.
Contact staff writer Christopher K. Hepp at 215-854-2208 or email@example.com.
This article contains information from Bloomberg News.