⚖ Oral Arguments, with Context

The Supreme Court considers when selling a generic drug becomes active inducement of patent infringement. Amarin sells Vascepa for severe high triglycerides and for reducing cardiovascular risk. After patents on the first use were invalidated, Hikma received approval to sell the same active ingredient only for that unpatented use. It used a skinny label, which omits instructions for the patented use. Amarin sued, saying Hikma nevertheless encouraged doctors to infringe by calling its product generic Vascepa, listing a broad therapeutic category, and citing Vascepa's total sales. The district court dismissed the complaint; the Federal Circuit revived it. After this argument, a unanimous Supreme Court reversed. It held that Amarin had not plausibly alleged affirmative steps designed to encourage infringement: the label followed federal law, generic equivalent was ordinary industry language, and Hikma's other statements were too vague.

Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA Inc. v. Amarin Pharma, Inc. (No. 24-889) — Supreme Court of the United States, argued April 29, 2026.