Amarin Corp Plc (AMRN)

[Dancing in the dark]

In its petition for certiorari, Teva asks ”can the generic manufacturer be held liable on a theory that its label still intentionally encourages infringement of those carved-out uses?”  Teva asserts that the Federal Circuit’s decision “eviscerates the key element of inducement liability:  the requirement that a plaintiff prove active steps to encourage direct infringement”, arguing that the decision “effectively nullifies a Congressional enactment created specifically to encourage precisely what Teva did here: bring a low-cost generic drug to market labeled for unpatented uses.”  In opposition, GSK’s question presented was slightly different: “When a generic drug is doubly indicated for a patented use, and there is strong record evidence of intent and inducing conduct, can the generic manufacturer evade liability for induced patent infringement merely because it did not include on its label (i.e. ‘carved out’) one of the two indications corresponding to the patented use?”

https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/previewing-generic-s-skinny-label-7905330/