Amarin Corp Plc (AMRN)

[HDGabor]

“Merely knowing” you are making something that is being used to violate a patent is prima facie inducement to violate the patent

Mere knowledge of (or willful blindness* about [* equivalent with knowledge]) the patent is a prerequisite. Without this no case but it is a prerequisite "only", is not a proof of inducement. Top of this a specific action is required.

Making something that is being used to violate a patent is prima facie contributory infringement (is not induced infringement) IF substantial non-infringing use does not exist. (Not the case here, MARINE indication - including less than 12 weeks treatment - is a substantial non-infringing use.

Knowledge of the patent (by Hikma) is not a question, no dispute about it (nor by Hikma). The question / subject of the case: Hikma specific action (e.g. promotional materials, PRs, etc.) met or does not met the specific action criteria? The Court will decide.

“Merely knowing” you are making something that is being used to violate a patent is prima facie inducement to violate the patent

How - a skinny label generic, that is not promoted in any form [no PR about it, is not listed on website, no single word about by the generic Co. ... but launched and made available - could be liable for induced* infringement? ... No ways. (*note: for inducement, is not for contributory infrimgement)