In 2024, the Federal Circuit held—for the second time—that a generic pharmaceutical company could, under certain circumstances, be liable for inducing infringement of a method of use patent for a carved out indication. Hikma, the aggrieved generic, has petitioned to the Supreme Court. On June 23, the Supreme Court took an interest by soliciting the views of the United States. If left to stand, the growing precedent over inducement for section viii indications may stifle investment into generic drugs. Will the Supreme Court save lower-cost medications from inducement by skinny labels?
Read MoreBad facts make bad law. The case of GlaxoSmithKline’s lawsuit over Teva’s generic Coreg® drug is a case-in-point. I previously blogged about the case here and here. Given that the Supreme Court declined to grant certiorari, we’re now stuck with Federal Circuit precedent holding that a generic can still face liability for induced infringement of a method-of-use patent covering a section viii carved-out indication. What will be the consequences of this?
Read More