Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA Inc. v. Amarin Pharma, Inc. · ¶37

Third, Amarin comes up short in resting the remainder of its inducement claim on “vague” statements “combined with speculation about how [medical providers] may act” in response to those statements. Takeda, 785 F. 3d, at 632. Take, to start, Amarin's argument that medical providers “would plausibly understand” the label's patient information leafet to encourage infringing uses because it identifes potential side effects for people with cardiovascular diseases and notes that medication is sometimes prescribed for uses other than those specifically indicated. Brief for Respondents 31 (internal quotation marks omitted). Again, § 271(b) requires “activ[e],” not passive, inducement. So the question is not merely whether the statements could be “plausibly underst[oo]d” to induce infringement, but whether they plausibly constitute “affrmative steps to bring about the desired result” of…

preliminary print (page proof)
Source edition
Passage preview. Read in context for the complete text, notes and references.