CASE OF THE WEEK

CASE OF THE WEEK

Hikma Pharms USA Inc. v. Amarin Pharma, Inc., Appeal No. 24-889 (Sup. Ct. June 4, 2026)

In its first patent case of 2026, the Supreme Court addressed a question of induced infringement as applied to the pharmaceutical industry.  Specifically, the Court considered whether a “skinny label” can give rise to claims of induced infringement.  After a panel of the Federal Circuit unanimously held that it could, the Supreme Court unanimously reversed.

Amarin developed a drug called Vascepa, which contains the active ingredient icosapent ethyl.  In 2012, the FDA approved Vascepa for the treatment of severe hypertriglyceridemia (the “SH indication”).  Amarin also obtained a patent for the use of icosapent ethyl to treat SH.  Amarain also continued its research into the use of icosapent ethyl, and found that it was also effective at reducing cardiovascular risk in hypertriglyceridemia patients who already take statins (the “CV indication”).  In 2019, the FDA approved Vascepa for the CV indication, which is a much more common use.

READ MORE

ALSO THIS WEEK

Read the full summaries via the button below.

Ollnova Techs. Ltd. v. ecobee Techs. ULC, Appeal Nos. 2025-1045, -1046 (Fed. Cir. June 4, 2026)

The Federal Circuit erased an $11.5 million infringement verdict against smart thermostat products sold by ecobee, finding error in the lower court’s jury instructions concerning infringement and patent ineligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101.  However, the reviewing panel rejected ecobee’s arguments that it was entitled to dismissal or judgment as  a matter of law on any claim, and so remanded for a new trial on infringement and damages...

AGI Suretrack LLC v. Farmers Edge Inc., Farmers Edge (US) Inc., Appeal Nos. 2024-1730, 2024-1830

The Federal Circuit affirmed the District of Nebraska’s holding that AGI’s asserted claims were patent ineligible, but vacated the holding that the case was not “exceptional”, due to the District Court’s failure to explain its reasoning on that point...

Hafeman v. Google LLC et al., Appeal Nos. 2024-1600 through -1605 (Fed. Cir. June 5, 2026)

In an appeal from a final decision of non-obviousness by the US patent office in an inter parties review (IPR), the Federal Circuit dismissed a portion of the appeal on the grounds that 35 U.S.C. § 315(d) bars judicial review of institution-related determinations by the US patent office.  Appellant argued that the Board abused its discretion by failing to address Sotera-related arguments in its final written decision, and attempted to frame such arguments as directed to how the IPR proceeded after institution of the IPR.  The Court disagreed, pointing out that an argument that the Sotera stipulation was “consideration” for institution is an institution-related argument, and thus barred from the Court’s review by 35 U.S.C. § 315(d)...

READ MORE

Editors:

Nika Aldrich, IP Litigation Group Leader, Schwabe

Jason Wrubleski, Shareholder