It seems to me after reading the ruling today in detail that generics can avoid a similar infringement ruling by simply stating in their promotional activities that generic icosapent ethyl is not approved for cardiovascular risk reduction. By making it clear that they are not equivalent for the infringing use, they should be able to avoid a similar infringement ruling. The ruling here was based on the connection of AB generic equivalence to the presumption that Generic carvediolol wasn’t equivalent to branded Coreg for all indications including infringing uses. But specifically stating that it is not should prevent that infringement. So I’m not sure this isn’t easily motivated by generics but hopefully it does at least give them pause.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
