Does Hikma’s Vascepa Litigation Dismissal Suggest Safety For Skinny Labels?
GSK-Teva Rulings Had Been Seen As An Existential Threat To Indication Carve-Outs
An induced-infringement attack on Hikma’s skinny-label generic version of Vascepa had been cited as evidence of the potential harm that would be caused by controversial rulings in separate litigation involving GSK and Teva. However, these fears may now appear overstated after the claim against Hikma was dismissed.
You may also be interested in...
An attack on Hikma’s skinny-label generic version of Vascepa by originator Amarin, claiming induced infringement of patents protecting a cardiovascular indication, has been dismissed in the US.
In a brief opposing Teva’s call for a US appeals court to rehear controversial litigation over carved-out indications and induced infringement, GSK has insisted that previous decisions in its favor do not amount to doomsday for skinny-label generics.
An amicus brief filed by the AAM has backed Teva’s bid to have the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit rehear litigation with GSK that revolves around skinny-label generics that carve out patented indications. But after a pair of controversial prior decisions in the originator’s favor, will the third time be the charm?