CAFC Limits Ability of Generics to Rely on Section viii Indication Carve-Outs

Last Friday (GSK v. Teva), a split panel of the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”) may have drastically limited the effectiveness of Section viii carve-outs when it reinstated a $235 million jury verdict against Teva, concluding that substantial evidence supported the jury’s finding of induced infringement.  Patent owner GlaxoSmithKline (“GSK”) sued Teva in the District of Delaware […]

Clinical Trials Showing that a “Sufficient Percentage” of Prescriptions Will Practice Claimed Method Held to Prove Induced Infringement

Judge Du of the District of Nevada recently issued findings of facts and conclusions of law in a patent trial related to the drug Vascepa®.  Amarin Pharma, Inc. v. Hikma Pharma. USA Inc.  The court ultimately held that the asserted claims were all invalid as obvious.  But first it held that defendants proposed labels would […]

Federal Circuit Purges Non-Infringement Verdict for Patented Colon Cleansing Method

This month the Federal Circuit held that Breckenridge’s proposed labeling for a generic colonoscopy prep kit would induce infringement of Braintree’s patent covering SUPREP.  Braintree Labs., Inc. v. Breckenridge Pharm., Inc., No. 16-1731 (Fed. Cir. May 5, 2017).  In doing so, the Federal Circuit clarified when proposed labeling amounts to an affirmative intent to induce […]

Supreme Court Holds Good-Faith Belief of Invalidity Not a Defense to Induced Infringement

The Ruling. In a 6-2 decision issued Tuesday, the Supreme Court once again disagreed with the Federal Circuit and held that a defendant’s good-faith (but incorrect) belief that a patent is invalid is not a defense to an induced infringement claim. Commil USA, LLC v. Cisco Sys., Inc., No. 13-896. The Court also affirmed that induced […]

Carve-Out Of Patented Uses In Hikma’s Mitigare™ Label Avoids Induced Infringement

In Takeda Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. v. West-Ward Pharmaceutical Corp., Judge Sue L. Robinson of Delaware denied Takeda’s motion for a preliminary injunction, finding no likelihood of success on its claim that Hikma induces infringement of Takeda’s method patents under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b). The five patents-in-suit cover methods of treating acute gout flare with colchicine […]

Supreme Court Rules No Liability for Induced Infringement Without Actual Infringement – Go Figure

In Limelight Networks, Inc. v. Akamai Technologies, Inc., handed down last week, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that there can be no liability for induced patent infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b) if no one has directly infringed the patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a). While that principle may seem self-evident, it was not so […]