• Our Professionals
  • Our Work
  • Our Insights
  • Firm
  • Careers
  • Tools
Finnegan
    • AIA Blog
    • European IP Blog
    • Federal Circuit IP Blog
    • INCONTESTABLE® Blog
    • IP FDA Blog
    • Prosecution First Blog
  • Articles
  • IP Updates
  • Podcasts
  • Events
  • Webinars
  • Books

Federal Circuit IP Blog

Skinny Label Does Not Prevent Finding of Induced Infringement

October 8, 2020

By Richard Hildreth III

Edited by Elizabeth D. Ferrill; Justin J. Hasford; Caitlin E. O'Connell

In GlaxoSmithKline LLC v. Teva Pharms. USA, Inc., Nos. 2018-1976, 2018-2023 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 2, 2020), the Federal Circuit reversed the district court’s grant of Teva’s motion for judgment of non-infringement as a matter of law.

GlaxoSmithKline sued Teva for induced infringement of Reissue Patent No. RE40,000, which is directed to a method of treating congestive heart failure with carvedilol. Teva sought to evade liability for induced infringement by marketing its product with a “skinny label” pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 355(j)(2)(A)(viii).  “Skinny labeling” refers to the practice by which a drug manufacturer seeks approval for some, but not all, of the indications for which the branded drug has been approved. The district court granted Teva’s motion for judgment as a matter of law (“JMOL”) because it found no proof that Teva had actually caused physicians to prescribe generic carvedilol to treat congestive heart failure.  The Federal Circuit reversed the district court’s JMOL order, holding that the district court applied an incorrect standard.  The Court explained that induced infringement should be found when the provider of an identical product knows of and markets that product for intended direct infringing activity. At trial, GSK introduced promotional materials, press releases, product catalogs, FDA labels, and testimony of witnesses from both sides indicating that Teva marketed its generic product for the treatment of heart failure.  Thus, substantial evidence supported the jury’s finding of induced infringement and Teva’s JMOL motion should have been denied.

In dissent, Chief Judge Prost agreed with the district court’s JMOL analysis and argued that the majority’s holding nullified Congress’s statutory provision for skinny labels.

Tags

Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Judgment as a Matter of Law (JMOL)

Related Practices

Patent Litigation

Branded Hatch-Waxman (ANDA)

Related Industries

Life Sciences

Pharmaceutical

Contacts

Richard Hildreth III
Associate
Washington, D.C.
+1 202 408 4327
Email
Elizabeth_Ferrill
Elizabeth D. Ferrill
Partner
Washington, D.C.
+1 202 408 4445
Email
Justin_Hasford
Justin J. Hasford
Partner
Washington, D.C.
+1 202 408 4175
Email
Caitlin_OConnell
Caitlin E. O'Connell
Associate
Washington, D.C.
+1 202 408 4004
Email

Copyright © 2020 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP. 


DISCLAIMER: Although we wish to hear from you, information exchanged in this blog cannot and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Please do not post any information that you consider to be personal or confidential. If you wish for Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP to consider representing you, in order to establish an attorney-client relationship you must first enter a written representation agreement with Finnegan. Contact us for additional information. One of our lawyers will be happy to discuss the possibility of representation with you. Additional disclaimer information.

Related Insights

Conference

Best Practices in Intellectual Property 2021

June 14-15, 2021

Tel Aviv

Webinar

Building Company Value With Cybersecurity Patents

February 8, 2021

Webinar

Webinar

Comparison of EPO Oppositions and USPTO PTAB Proceedings

January 28, 2021

Webinar

Webinar

Sanofi, Vanda, and GSK, a New Year Voyage through the Land of Induced Infringement

January 21, 2021

Webinar

Federal Circuit IP Blog

Disavowal of Infringement Case Eliminates Article III Standing for Appeal of IPR

January 13, 2021

INCONTESTABLE® Blog

TTAB KO’s Mayweather PAST PRESENT FUTURE Trademark Application

January 13, 2021

Federal Circuit IP Blog

Federal Circuit Finds Preamble Limiting When It Supplies the Claim’s Structure

January 12, 2021

Prosecution First Blog

Balancing Cost and Enforcement

January 11, 2021

Prosecution First Blog

How Two Recent Court Decisions Show Ownership Can Be Everything and Standing Must Be Taken Into Account

January 8, 2021

Due to international data regulations, we’ve recently updated our privacy policy. Click here to read our privacy policy in full.

We use cookies on this website to provide you with the best user experience. By accepting cookies, you agree to our use of cookies. Please note that if you opt not to accept or if you disable cookies, the “Your Finnegan” feature on this website will be disabled as well. For more information on how we use cookies, please see our Privacy Policy.

  • Privacy
  • Disclaimer
  • EEO Statement

© 2021 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP