FedCircuitBlog

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. There are currently no pending cases. As for pending petitions, since our last update, four new petitions were filed in a government contract case, a patent case, and two pro se cases; one waiver of the right to respond to a petition was filed in a case originally decided by the Merit Systems Protection Board; two reply briefs were filed in a takings case and a patent case; and the Supreme Court denied three petitions in a trade case, a takings case, and a veterans case. Here are the details.

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, since our last update the Court issued its decision. As for pending petitions, no new petitions were filed; two waivers of the right to respond to petitions were filed in a patent case and a pro se case; and two reply briefs were filed in patent cases. Here are the details.

This morning the Supreme Court reversed the Federal Circuit’s holding in Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA Inc. v. Amarin Pharma, Inc. addressing so-called skinny labeling and inducement of patent infringement. The Federal Circuit had rejected “characterizations that a reversal in this case would ‘effectively eviscerate section viii carve-outs’” of the Hatch-Waxman Act and held that Amarin had “plausibly pleaded that Hikma . . . induced infringement.” The Supreme Court disagreed. In a unanimous opinion authored by Justice Jackson, the Court decided mere plausibility that a physician could read relevant statements “as an instruction or encouragement to” infringe did not rise to the required standard of taking “active steps” to induce patent infringement. Here is the introduction and conclusion of today’s opinion. We plan to post a full opinion summary soon.

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, we are waiting for the Court to issue its decision. As for pending petitions, since our last update, two new petitions were filed in a patent case and a pro se case; two waivers of the right to respond to petitions were filed in a patent case and a pro se case; one reply brief was filed in a trade case; seven amicus briefs were filed in a patent case; and the Supreme Court denied three petitions in a takings case, a veterans case, and a pro se case. Here are the details.

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, we have posted our argument recap. As for pending petitions, since our last update, two new petitions were filed; three waivers of the right to respond to petitions were filed; four briefs in opposition were filed; two reply briefs were filed; and the Supreme Court denied a petition. Here are the details.

Late last month, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA Inc. v. Amarin Pharma, Inc., a case originally decided by the Federal Circuit. The Supreme Court granted review to consider the following two 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?”

This is our argument recap.

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, oral argument took place in late April. As for pending petitions, since our last update, six new petitions were filed; three waivers of the right to respond to petitions were filed; three briefs in opposition were filed; three reply briefs were filed; two amicus briefs were filed; and the Supreme Court denied petitions in five cases. Here are the details.

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, one new petition was filed in a veterans benefits case; two waivers of the right to respond to petitions were filed in a patent case and a case addressing Federal Circuit Rule 36; a brief in opposition was filed in a government contracts case; and the Supreme Court denied petitions in a patent case, a trademark case, and three pro se cases. Here are the details.

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–the petitioner filed its reply brief. As for pending petitions, since our last update two new petitions were filed in an Indian Tucker Act case and a pro se case; a brief in opposition was filed in a patent case; and an amicus brief was filed in a case addressing Rule 36 summary affirmances. Here are the details.

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.