IP Intelligence

Home | IP Intelligence

The Supreme Court just handed generic manufacturers – and really, all patent defendants – a major win in Hikma v. Amarin, unanimously reversing the Federal Circuit and tightening the standard for induced infringement under §&nbsp;271(b).

core/paragraph

The bottom line: Inducement requires plausible allegations of active, affirmative conduct designed to encourage infringement. Allegations of passive conduct or statements that merely “could be read” to encourage infringement will not survive a motion to dismiss. What matters is whether the complaint alleges the defendant actually encouraged infringement.

core/heading

Amarin held method-of-use patents for treating severe hypertriglyceridemia (SH) with icosapent ethyl, branded as Vascepa. Hikma submitted an ANDA with a paragraph IV certification, ultimately succeeding in invalidating the patents for the SH indication. During that litigation, Amarin obtained additional method-of-use patents for reducing cardiovascular risk in hypertriglyceridemia patients on statins. Hikma amended its ANDA to seek approval of a “skinny label,” carving out the patented cardiovascular indication.

When Hikma launched its generic, Amarin sued for induced infringement.

To state an inducement claim, a patentee must plausibly allege each of the following:

core/list-item

Knowledge that the induced acts constitute patent infringement

Active steps to encourage direct infringement

core/list

Amarin attempted to allege active encouragement by combining Hikma’s statements in the FDA-approved skinny label, a patient information leaflet, and its website and press releases together with knowledge that physicians often prescribe generic drugs interchangeably with a branded drug. Amarin argued the totality of these circumstances led to a plausible inference that Hikma encouraged physicians to prescribe the generic for patented indications.

The district court rejected that theory at the pleading stage. The Federal Circuit revived it, holding it was enough that a physician could read Hikma’s statements as encouragement to infringe by prescribing the generic to reduce cardiovascular risk in hypertriglyceridemia patients on statins.

SCOTUS Rejects Amarin’s Theory, Provides Road Map for Pleading Inducement

The Supreme Court unanimously reversed the Federal Circuit, holding that inducement requires real encouragement. Speculation on how a downstream infringer might interpret a defendant’s statements – even plausible speculation – is not enough to survive a motion to dismiss.

The Court provided useful guidance not just for generic manufacturers but for all patent defendants facing an induced-infringement claim. First, conduct that is either required by law or industry standard is not active encouragement to infringe. In Hikma’s case, following FDA law on what a skinny label required and calling its drug a “generic equivalent” did not qualify as active encouragement to infringe. Mere compliance does not lead to culpability.

Second, omissions do not rise to active encouragement. Amarin leaned on Hikma’s failure to disclaim the patented indication or to emphasize the limited nature of its FDA approval. The Court rejected this argument, refusing to construe silence as tacit encouragement. The Court noted it looks for “affirmative statements or actions precisely to avoid trenching on regular commerce.”

Third, allegations that statements could encourage a third party to infringe are insufficient to plead the active-encouragement prong. Amarin’s allegations that doctors could plausibly understand Hikma’s statements as instructions to infringe failed to plausibly meet the active-encouragement threshold. The Court reiterated a line familiar since the Iqbal/Twombly cases: Possibility is not plausibility.

This case is a major win for generic drug manufacturers. ANDA holders with an approved skinny label will not face viable induced-infringement claims merely for following FDA law on skinny-label carve-outs, using the term “generic” or “bioequivalent,” or failing to expressly disclaim patented indications in marketing collateral – even when it is widely known that doctors will use the generic interchangeably with the branded drug, including for patented uses. In the words of the Court, generics have “breathing room” to operate within the bounds of what the FDA requires and what is customary in the industry.

For patent litigants more broadly, Hikma provides a clear road map on what is required to plead induced infringement. Patentees will need to ensure complaints for induced infringement include plausible allegations of active encouragement. Patent defendants have a potent argument to attack complaints for inducement that rely on implication, ambiguous statements or what a third party might understand.

Unanimous Court Resets Inducement Landscape, Tightens Pleading Standard