HdG...Thank for your answer to my post, which was...
My QUOTE :"Can you please explain to me why you think...under this definition above, Westward was not participating in "infringing by inducement" in delivering their address to the Docs assembled at the JPM meeting"
Your answer was:.... QUOTE "First of all: let's (shortly) clarify what is in the JPM presentation (longer here)
- it is not about the future (is not an expectation / forecast) but about the past
- it (the $) is not made by Hikma but by IQVIA
- it is not Hikma's market share but the total (past)
(Furthermore - officially - it is the MARINE label market, since it is about the market PRE Dec 13, 2019)."
My take is: The generics agreed to the $ estimate made by IQVIA and decided to present it at JPM meting as an encouragement to the Docs as to what they could expect in the future if they presribed Vascepa.
Your QUOTE "Second: the patented method is part of the MARINE indication … MARINE indication in case of longer than 12 weeks treatment … the patents are method of use patents."
My take...The Docs are well aware of the need for treatment for longer than 12 weeks
Your Quote:.."Third: Inducement is "whether the proposed label instructs users to perform the patented method" … nothing other than the label is relevant. AstraZeneca LP v. Apotex, Inc., 633 F.3d 1042, 1060 (Fed.Cir.2010). … whether Generics “have the specific intent, based on the contents of their proposed labels, to encourage physicians to use their proposed ANDA products” in a way that (the physician) infringes the asserted claims. Grunenthal GMBH v. Alkem Labs. Ltd., 919 F.3d 1333, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2019). … whether the content of the proposed labels encourage physicians to use their proposed ANDA products for longer than 12 weeks. (Please note: Merely that the Generics had knowledge of the physicians activities, existence of direct infringement is not enough.)"
My take:...The Marine type label encourages physicians to infringe by inducement
