In an opinion authored by Justice Jackson earlier this month, a unanimous Supreme Court recently reversed the Federal Circuit and held that Amarin Pharma, Inc. failed to state a claim for induced infringement under 35 U.S.C. Section 271(b). The decision sharpens the analysis courts must apply to the "active steps" element of inducement and rejects a line of Federal Circuit authority that had allowed inducement claims to survive on the theory that physicians could read a generic manufacturer's statements as encouragement to infringe. Going forward, the inquiry centers on what the defendant affirmatively and purposefully did to encourage infringement - not on how a third party might interpret ambiguous statements.
Background
Amarin Pharma, Inc. (Amarin) developed Vascepa, a drug containing icosapent ethyl. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved Vascepa in 2012 for severe hypertriglyceridemia (the SH indication) and, in 2019, for the more common use of reducing cardiovascular risk in patients already taking statins (the CV indication). Amarin obtained two method-of-use patents covering the CV indication.
Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. (Hikma), a generic manufacturer, filed an abbreviated new drug application in 2016. After a court invalidated Amarin's SH-indication patents, Hikma pursued a "skinny label," under 21 U.S.C. Section 355(j)(2)(A)(viii), that included only the SH indication and carved out the still-patented CV indication use. The FDA approved Hikma's skinny label in 2020 with an "AB" therapeutic-equivalence rating.1 Amarin then sued in the District of Delaware, alleging that the totality of Hikma's statements - across the skinny label, the patient information leaflet, its website, and its press releases - actively induced infringement of the CV-indication patents. The district court dismissed Amarin's claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim. The Federal Circuit reversed, finding it "at least plausible that a physician could read" the statements as instruction or encouragement to infringe.
The Court's Framework for Induced Infringement
The Court reaffirmed that an induced-infringement claim has three elements:
- Direct infringement by a third party2;
- Knowledge that the induced acts constitute infringement3; and
- "Active steps . . . to encourage direct infringement"4.
Only the third element was at issue. Drawing on its precedent, the Court defined "active steps" as "the taking of affirmative, as opposed to passive, steps to bring about the desired result of patent infringement."5 Critically, "ordinary acts incident to product distribution"6 are insufficient to support liability.
The Heightened Standard: "Designed to Stimulate," Not Merely "Could Stimulate"
The central holding draws a sharp line. The dispositive question is whether the patentee plausibly alleged that the defendant took affirmative steps to bring about the desired result of infringement - not merely whether others could plausibly read the statements as instructions to infringe. As the Court put it, statements "designed to stimulate others to commit violations" form a narrower category than statements that merely could stimulate others. Inducement "cannot be based only on 'vague' language 'combined with speculation about how [others] may act.'"7 To illustrate the difference, the Court returned to Grokster itself, where the defendants did far more than distribute a product capable of infringing use - they sent newsletters promoting access to popular copyrighted works and responded affirmatively to user requests for help locating that material. That kind of overt enticement is the "classic instance of inducement"8; passive availability of a product with infringing potential is not.
The Court expressly rejected the recent Federal Circuit trend, reflected in GlaxoSmithKline LLC, focusing on whether prescribers might understand a statement as an instruction to infringe.9 The key question, the Court emphasized, is what the defendant did, "not merely how others may understand those statements." At the same time, the Court declined Hikma's invitation to require that inducement be "express." Implicit encouragement can suffice - but it must be "clear" to the relevant audience and "affirmative."10
Why Amarin's "Totality" Theory Failed
Applying the federal plausibility pleading standard, the Court found that Amarin alleged "no more than a sheer possibility" of active inducement, for three independent reasons:
- Obvious alternative explanations: Several statements were explained by compliance with the law or standard industry practice. Hikma's label tracked Amarin's because the "duty of sameness" is required by law,11 and describing a product as "generic" or the "generic equivalent" of the other is "normal industry practice" as previously recognized by the Court.12 The Court declined to turn adherence to law and industry standards into building blocks for liability.
- Omissions are not affirmative acts: Amarin could not rely on "mere omissions, inactions, or nonfeasance" to allege actual inducement.13 The skinny label's omission of the CV Limitation of Use or the press releases' silence about the limited SH approval were insufficient as the court "look[s] for affirmative 'statements or actions' precisely to avoid 'trenching on regular commerce' . . . [o]therwise, 'ordinary merchants could become liable for any misuse of their goods and services.'"14 35 U.S.C. Section 271(b) requires "activ[e]," not passive, inducement.
- Vague statements plus speculation: The remaining statements were too vague to support liability. The patient leaflet's side-effect (a warning and boilerplate disclaimer, according to the Court) were "implausibly roundabout ways to induce medical providers to infringe." The website's reference to the broad "hypertriglyceridemia" category and the "AB" rating were not plausibly intended to stimulate others to infringe - particularly where the site disclosed that the generic was indicated for fewer than all of Vascepa's uses. The sales figures used in press releases directed to investors that were attributable to the SH-indication and the CV-indication methods of use require a long, speculative chain: (1) a medical provider must search for and read these press releases; (2) the medical provider must understand that the quoted sales figures were attributable to both uses; and (3) the medical provider must understand these facts as a "subtle encouragement to start prescribing" the generic drug in the same way. The Court recognized that while this is possible, it is not plausible and does not give rise to an active inducement claim.
Practical Takeaways
For generic manufacturers and skinny-label defendants: The decision is a meaningful reaffirmation of skinny-label protection. Complying with the duty of sameness, truthfully describing a product as a "generic equivalent," and carrying an "AB" rating cannot, standing alone, supply the affirmative encouragement 35 U.S.C. Section 271(b) demands. Omissions and ordinary acts incident to distribution remain outside the statute's reach.
For brand and innovator patentees: The pleading burden is higher. A "totality of the statements" theory paired with speculation about prescriber behavior is unlikely to survive a motion to dismiss. Patentees should marshal concrete facts of affirmative, purposeful conduct - express promotion, targeted marketing, or instructions pointing specifically to the patented use - and be prepared to rule out obvious lawful explanations at the pleading stage. Because the dismissal here came at the Rule 12(b)(6) stage, the practical effect is to filter out inducement theories before discovery unless the complaint identifies affirmative, purposeful encouragement on its face.
Moving Forward: Although the case arose in the generic-drug context, the Court stated the standard under 35 U.S.C. Section 271(b) in general terms. Its focus on affirmative, culpable conduct – and its rejection of a "could be reasonably understood" framing – will shape inducement theories in component-supply, software, and distribution cases alike. The decision reflects a growing judicial reluctance to impose secondary liability based on a defendant's passive or ambiguous conduct. Whether the theory is framed as induced patent infringement under Section 271(b) or as contributory copyright infringement under analogous copyright doctrines, courts have increasingly demanded evidence that the defendant engaged in conduct directed toward bringing about a specific violation. Generalized knowledge that third parties might misuse a product or service, standing alone, falls short. While this doctrinal trajectory protects legitimate commercial activity and innovation, it also increases the burden on those seeking to enforce their rights.
How We Can Help
Hikma gives generic manufacturers greater predictability and breathing room while requiring patentees to plead inducement with affirmative facts of culpable encouragement. Our Intellectual Property team is available to discuss how the decision affects pending litigation, product-launch strategy, skinny-label decisions, and patent-enforcement programs. Please contact Nicole Imhof, Edward D. Lanquist or any member of Baker Donelson's Intellectual Property Group to evaluate the implications for your portfolio.
---
1 "[A]n 'AB' rating means that the product is equivalent to the brand-name drug only 'under the conditions specified in the generic's label,' which excludes unapproved, patented methods of use." GlaxoSmithKline LLC v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., 7 F. 4th 1320, 1335 (CA Fed. 2021).
2 Limelight Networks, Inc. v. Akamai Technologies, Inc., 572 U. S. 915, 920-921 (2014).
3 Global-Tech Appliances, Inc. v. SEB S. A., 563 U. S. 754, 766 (2011).
4 Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd., 545 U. S. 913, 936 (2005).
5 Global-Tech., 563 U. S., at 760.
6 Grokster, 545 U. S., at 937.
7 Takeda Pharmaceuticals U. S. A., Inc. v. West Ward Pharmaceutical Corp., 785 F. 3d 625, 632 (CA Fed. 2015).
8 Grokster, 545 U. S., at 937.
9 GlaxoSmithKline LLC, 7 F. 4th at 1336-1337.
10 Grokster, 545 U. S., at 937.
11 21 U. S. C. §355(j)(2)(A)(v); see also 21 CFR §314.94(a)(8)(iv); PLIVA, Inc. v. Mensing, 564 U. S. 604, 616 (2011) (explaining the "duty of sameness" for generic drug manufacturers).
12 Inwood Laboratories, Inc. v. Ives Laboratories, Inc., 456 U. S. 844, 847-848 (1982).
13 Twitter, Inc. v. Taamneh, 598 U. S. 471, 489 (2023).
14 Grokster, 545 U. S., at 935, 937; Twitter, 598 U. S., at 489.