"Justice Thomas, writing for the majority, held that secondary liability requires either inducement (active steps to encourage infringement) or tailoring (a service 'not capable of substantial or commercially significant non-infringing uses')."
"The court held mere knowledge that downstream users will infringe, even combined with continued provision of a useful product, is not enough to justify an inducement finding."
"Amarin will need to distinguish the two cases in order to win, but inevitability is not the same as encouragement, as clarified by Cox."
The Supreme Court will hear Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA Inc. v. Amarin Pharma, Inc. on April 29, 2026. This case is significant as it addresses patent inducement, a topic not examined since 2015. The recent case Cox Communications, Inc. v. Sony Music Entertainment provides a relevant framework, where the court defined secondary liability in copyright law. The ruling emphasized that mere knowledge of infringement is insufficient for inducement. Amarin must differentiate its case from Cox to succeed, but the structural issues raised may hinder its argument.
Read at Patently-O
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]