“Whether substantial evidence supports the jury’s verdict that Teva willfully induced infringement of GSK’s patented method of treating congestive heart failure where: (a) Teva encouraged the infringing use in promotional materials communicated to doctors, such as product catalogs, product reference guides, press releases, and product information on its website, including by advertising that its product should be used just like GSK’s Coreg® product; (b) Teva provided instructions for the infringing use on the labels it distributed with its generic drug product and encouraged doctors to read the labels; (c) GSK’s expert testified that Teva’s promotional materials and labels caused him and other physicians to use Teva’s product just like Coreg® to treat congestive heart failure in an infringing manner; and (d) Teva intended to induce physicians to prescribe its generic carvedilol in an infringing manner.”
“Because substantial evidence supports the jury’s verdict of induced infringement, we vacate the district court’s grant of JMOL. Because the district court did not err in its jury instructions on damages, we affirm on the cross-appeal. We remand for appropriate further proceedings.”
