Featured / Petitions / Supreme Court Activity
on

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. In the only pending case, a patent case addressing inducement of infringement and so-called skinny-labeling, there has been no new activity since our last update. As for pending petitions, since our last update no new petitions have been filed in cases decided by the Federal Circuit; one waiver of the right to respond to a petition was filed in a patent case addressing sanctions; and four amicus briefs were filed in another patent case addressing prosecution laches. Here are the details.

Pending Cases

Since our last update, there is no new activity in Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA Inc. v. Amarin Pharma, Inc., the only currently pending case previously decided by the Federal Circuit. As a reminder, the petition presented the Court with the following questions:

  1. “When a generic drug label fully carves out a patented use, are allegations that the generic drugmaker calls its product a ‘generic version’ and cites public information about the branded drug (e.g., sales) enough to plead induced infringement of the patented use?”
  2. “Does a complaint state a claim for induced infringement of a patented method if it does not allege any instruction or other statement by the defendant that encourages, or even mentions, the patented use?”

Pending Petitions

New Petitions

Since our last update, no new petitions have been filed in cases decided by the Federal Circuit.

Waivers of the Right to Respond

Since our last update, a waiver of the right to respond to the petition was filed in EscapeX IP, LLC v. Google LLC, a patent case addressing sanctions.

Amicus Briefs

Since our last update, four amicus briefs were filed in Hyatt v. Squires, a patent case. As a reminder, the petition asked the the Court to review the following question:

  • “Whether the PTO may invoke the equitable doctrine of ‘prosecution laches’ to deny a patent to an applicant who has complied with all the Patent Act’s timeliness provisions.”

Each of the four amicus briefs support the petitioner and were filed by the following parties: