From the Courthouse Steps: Hikma v. Amarin @TheFederalistSociety
From the Courthouse Steps: Hikma v. Amarin  @TheFederalistSociety
Uploaded June 2026 | Updated September 2026, 2 weeks ago
In Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA v. Amarin Pharma, the Supreme Court unanimously held that, to plausibly allege induced infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b), a complaint must identify words or conduct that affirmatively encourage infringement. Writing for the Court, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson explained that a generic manufacturer's label and public statements must do more than merely leave open the possibility that doctors might prescribe or pharmacists might dispense the drug for a patented indication.

Join us for a webinar breaking down the ruling and its implications for patent litigation.

Featuring:

Prof. Adam Mossoff, Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University
Wesley Weeks, Partner, Wiley Rein LLP

* * * * *

As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.
From the Courthouse Steps: Hikma v. Amarin[LIVE] What Would the Founders Think of the War in Iran?Panel 3: A Permit to Carry (Electricity): NEPA Litigation and Permitting ReformRace to a Moon Base—And Frontiers Beyond
The Federalist Society |

From the Courthouse Steps: Hikma v. Amarin

SHARE TO X SHARE TO REDDIT SHARE TO FACEBOOK WALLPAPER