Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA Inc. v. Amarin Pharma, Inc. · ¶2
Held: Amarin has failed to state a claim for active inducement in violation of §271(b), so its complaint cannot withstand Hikma’s motion to dismiss. The central question is whether Amarin plausibly alleged that Hikma actively encouraged infringing use, not merely whether doctors could plausibly read the alleged statements as instructions to infringe. Pp. 7–14. (a) A claim for active inducement of infringement under §271(b) requires three elements: direct infringement by a third party, Limelight Networks, Inc. v. Akamai Technologies, Inc., 572 U. S. 915, 920–921; knowledge that “the induced acts constitute patent infringement,” Global-Tech Appliances, Inc. v. SEB S. A., 563 U. S. 754, 766; and “active steps . . . to encourage direct infringement,” Metro Goldwyn Mayer Studios Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd., 545 U. S. 913, 936 (internal quotation marks omitted). Pp. 4–5. (b) This case concerns the…Read in context ›
slip opinion
Source edition
Passage preview. Read in context for the complete text, notes and references.