"Justice Sotomayor pinned down all counsel to agree that no new doctrine is needed to decide this case. This led to several justices remarking that they should not even be hearing the case because it focused on factual error review rather than legal doctrine."
"Justice Barrett quoted Justice Alito's earlier-Term observation that 'I'm not sure why this case is here except four of my colleagues wanted it to be.'"
"Ultimately, a major § 271(b) pronouncement people braced for after January's cert grant looks somewhat unlikely. If the generic Hikma wins reversal, I now expect it will be based upon the court's narrowing of the facts rather than rewriting the law."
"The U.S. Gov't amicus position - most often - the one to watch. I.e., it is the position that the Court is most likely to follow."
The Supreme Court heard arguments in Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA Inc. v. Amarin Pharma, Inc., focusing on patent inducement in the context of skinny labels. Justice Sotomayor emphasized that no new doctrine was necessary for the case. Several justices expressed skepticism about the case's relevance, suggesting it centered on factual error rather than legal principles. A significant ruling on § 271(b) seems unlikely, with expectations leaning towards a decision based on factual narrowing rather than legal reinterpretation. The U.S. Government's amicus position is crucial, as it often influences the Court's decisions.
Read at Patently-O
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]