Brief of 76 Scholars of Law, Business, Economics, and Medicine in Hikma v. Amarin (Merits)

Filed in support of Hikma, the amici outline that patent inducement liability has long required specific, unambiguous, and affirmative conduct, and that the Federal Circuit erred by allowing inducement claims based on speculative inferences from generic drug labels, AB-rating designations, and general marketing statements. Such expansion of patent inducement undermines the “skinny label” pathway for generic drugs, distorts innovation incentives toward low-value method-of-use patents, and threatens patient access to affordable medicines.