1. “Did the district court err by failing to consider the combined weight and effect of evidence demonstrating Hikma’s repeated extra-label encouragement of using their generic version of Amarin’s patented drug for both the approved skinny-label use of treating severe hypertriglyceridemia and the non-approved and infringing use of reducing cardiovascular risk in patients who do not suffer from severe hypertriglyceridemia when it dismissed Amarin’s complaint for failure to state a claim?”
2. “Did the district court err by implicitly making a factual finding on the pleadings regarding what Hikma’s conduct communicated to prescribing physicians, a key element of induced infringement?”
3. “Did the district court improperly analogize Amarin’s allegations to Grunenthal, a label-only case where the asserted patent covered a use narrower than the generic label instructed, whereas Amarin alleged extra-label inducement activity by Hikma in the context of Amarin’s patents, which are directed to a use broader than Hikma’s approved use?”
