Since North hasn't spoken up, I'll throw my 2 cents in.
IMO, this board is being way too positive about the judge's decision. Inducement requires more than proof that it is "at all likely that the doc will write a script for 12 weeks or more," as Hamoa suggests. That might make the doctors infringers, but does not make the generics inducers. Even knowledge by the generics that doctors will prescribe V for 12+ weeks is not enough for inducement. To win, AMRN must prove that the generics are actively encouraging doctors to prescribe for 12+ weeks. That is not an easy standard to meet.
On summary judgment, the judge is required to accept what AMRN's expert said as true. When the trial comes, he is not required to do so. And this statement by the judge scares me:
"That said, whether Defendants’ proposed labelling would induce doctors to prescribe their proposed drugs for 12 weeks or more is a close call because the proposed labelling does not have much to say about the duration of treatment. (See generally ECF No. 245.) Plaintiffs point to only three instances in the 10 pages of labelling..."
Saying it is a "close call" shows that the judge could go either way at trial.
On contributory, I was surprised the judge held that 5% was sufficient to be a substantial non-infringing use. That could be attacked on appeal.
This is my opinion only, not legal advice.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
