These cases are all factually intensive because they involve proof that one party (the generic company) is trying to induce someone else to infringe a patent. Each case has different facts, and here Hikma convinced the trial court that Amarin had not alleged enough of the right facts to plead a valid induced infringement claim. So the case could not be put to a jury. The GSK v. Teva case was a jury’s verdict after hearing all the evidence. Teva’s press releases were what hurt it the most in that case. We don’t have the same evidence of induced infringement.
So it’s clear that generics can’t do what Teva did, but not yet finally resolved whether what Hikma did can be considered as induced infringement. This will be clarified in the CAFC decision.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
