From the Courthouse Steps: Hikma v. Amarin

In Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA v. Amarin Pharma, the Supreme Court unanimously held that, to plausibly allege induced infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b), a complaint must identify words or conduct that affirmatively encourage infringement. Writing for the Court, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson explained that a generic manufacturer's label and public statements must do more than merely leave open the possibility that doctors might prescribe or pharmacists might dispense the drug for a patented indication.

Join us for a webinar breaking down the ruling and its implications for patent litigation.

Featuring:

• Prof. Adam Mossoff, Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University
• Wesley Weeks, Partner, Wiley Rein LLP
   

*******

As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.