VotePredictor

← The Supreme Court

Hikma Pharmaceuticals v. Amarin

No. 24-889 · October Term 2025 · Economic Activity · decided June 4, 2026

questions presented (PDF) · docket · Oyez

73%chance Hikma Pharmaceuticals (petitioner) wins · a likely call

Decided: Hikma Pharmaceuticals won 9-0. The model was right.

Expected vote 6–3 for Hikma Pharmaceuticals. Chance of a unanimous ruling 49%. FantasySCOTUS crowd: 93% Hikma Pharmaceuticals.

The case

Hikma Pharmaceuticals, a generic drug manufacturer, is being sued by Amarin Pharma, the maker of the brand-name drug Vascepa, for allegedly inducing infringement of a patented use despite using a "skinny label" that carves out the patented indication. The Federal Circuit reversed a lower court's dismissal, finding Amarin's claims plausible based on Hikma's marketing. The Supreme Court must now determine what constitutes induced infringement when a generic drugmaker uses a skinny label and makes public statements about its product.

  • What evidence beyond a skinny label is sufficient to plead induced infringement of a patented drug use?
  • Does merely calling a product a "generic version" and citing public sales data of the branded drug constitute active inducement of infringement?
  • Can a claim for induced infringement proceed if the defendant's statements do not explicitly encourage or even mention the patented use?
  • How does the Hatch-Waxman Act's intent to facilitate generic drug approval balance against patent holders' rights to prevent induced infringement?

AI brief written by gemini-2.5-flash from the questions presented and the Oyez facts on 2026-10-02. Commentary only; it is not an input to the model.

Parties
Petitioner: Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA Inc., et al., Petitioners
Respondent: Amarin Pharma, Inc., et al.
Below
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · June 25, 2024
104 F.4th 1370 · ruling coded conservative · cert. granted 1/16/2026
Question presented, as filed

Congress passed the Hatch-Waxman Act "[t]o facilitate the approval of generic drugs as soon as patents allow." Caraco Pharm. Labs., Ltd. v. Novo Nordisk A/S , 566 U.S. 399, 405 (2012). Recognizing that many drugs are approved for both patented and unpatented uses, Congress sought to ensure "that one patented use will not foreclose marketing a generic drug for other unpatented ones." Id . at 415. The statutory mechanism is a "skinny label": Generic drugmakers "carve out" patented uses from their labels, leaving only instructions to use generic drugs for their unpatented uses. See 21 U.S.C. § 355(j)(2)(A)(viii). Congress designed this carve-out mechanism to encourage competition and to protect generic drugmakers from allegations that marketing a generic drug for an unpatented use "actively induces infringement." 35 U.S.C. § 271(b). After all, active inducement requires "clear expression or other affirmative steps taken to foster infringement"-there is no "liability when a defendant merely sells a commercial product suitable for some lawful use." Metro-Goldwyn- Mayer Studios Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd. , 545 U.S. 913, 936-937 & n.11 (2005). The questions presented are: 1. When a generic drug label fully carves out a patented use, are allegations that the generic drugmaker calls its product a "generic version" and cites public information about the branded drug (e.g., sales) enough to plead induced infringement of the patented use? 2. Does a complaint state a claim for induced infringement of a patented method if it does not allege any instruction or other statement by the defendant that encourages, or even mentions, the patented use?

Facts of the case (Oyez)

Amarin Pharma markets icosapent ethyl under the brand name Vascepa. In 2012, the FDA approved Vascepa for treating severe hypertriglyceridemia (the SH indication), which affects patients with blood triglyceride levels of at least 500 mg/dL. In 2019, following additional research and clinical trials, the FDA approved Vascepa for a second use: reducing cardiovascular risk in patients with triglyceride levels of at least 150 mg/dL (the CV indication). Amarin listed two patents covering the CV indication in the FDA’s Orange Book. In 2016, Hikma Pharmaceuticals submitted an Abbreviated New Drug Application seeking approval for a generic version of icosapent ethyl. When the CV indication was approved in 2019, Hikma filed a “section viii statement” seeking FDA approval only for the SH indication by “carving out” the patented CV indication from its label—creating a “skinny label.” The FDA approved Hikma’s ANDA in May 2020. Throughout 2020, Hikma issued press releases referring to its product as the “generic version” or “generic equivalent” of Vascepa, describing Vascepa as indicated “in part” for the SH indication, and citing Vascepa sales figures (over $1 billion annually) that were attributable primarily to the CV indication. Hikma also marketed its product on its website under the therapeutic category “Hypertriglyceridemia” and as “AB” rated, though with a disclaimer that it was approved for fewer indications than Vascepa. In November 2020, Amarin sued Hikma for induced infringement of its CV indication patents. The U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware granted Hikma’s motion to dismiss. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed, finding that Amarin’s allegations—based on Hikma’s skinny label combined with its press releases and marketing materials—plausibly stated a claim for induced infringement.

The nine

Each justice's predicted vote and the record behind it: how often they have voted for the petitioner overall, in Economic Activity cases, and when the lower court ruled conservative; and, once argued, how many questions they put to each side (the side a justice questions more tends to lose their vote). The note under each row is the AI brief's reading, commentary rather than model input.

JusticePredictedOverallThis issueLower court conservativeAt argumentVoted
John G. Roberts
Republican appointee · since OT2005

Chief Justice Roberts often emphasizes statutory text and congressional intent; here, the Court will need to interpret the balance Congress struck in the Hatch-Waxman Act regarding skinny labels and induced infringement.

71% Hikma Pharmaceuticals68%
for the petitioner · 1,512 votes
68%
Economic Activity · 328 votes
61%
lower court conservative · 734 votes
11 / 3
questions at Hikma / Amarin
Hikma Pharmaceuticals ✓
Clarence Thomas
Republican appointee · since OT1991

Justice Thomas typically adheres to a strict textualist approach, which in this case would involve a close reading of the Hatch-Waxman Act and the definition of 'active inducement' under patent law.

64% Hikma Pharmaceuticals59%
for the petitioner · 2,801 votes
62%
Economic Activity · 555 votes
43%
lower court conservative · 1,365 votes
12 / 3
questions at Hikma / Amarin
Hikma Pharmaceuticals ✓
Samuel A. Alito
Republican appointee · since OT2005

Justice Alito often takes a pragmatic approach to statutory interpretation, considering the practical implications of a ruling on both generic drug competition and patent protection.

71% Hikma Pharmaceuticals62%
for the petitioner · 1,469 votes
67%
Economic Activity · 322 votes
48%
lower court conservative · 722 votes
3 / 2
questions at Hikma / Amarin
Hikma Pharmaceuticals ✓
Sonia Sotomayor
Democratic appointee · since OT2009

Justice Sotomayor often considers the broader policy implications of patent law, including access to affordable generic drugs, which could influence her view on the scope of induced infringement liability.

64% Hikma Pharmaceuticals61%
for the petitioner · 1,192 votes
58%
Economic Activity · 264 votes
76%
lower court conservative · 594 votes
16 / 0
questions at Hikma / Amarin
Hikma Pharmaceuticals ✓
Elena Kagan
Democratic appointee · since OT2010

Justice Kagan, known for her careful statutory analysis, will likely focus on the legislative history and purpose of the Hatch-Waxman Act to determine the intended scope of protection for generic drugmakers using skinny labels.

76% Hikma Pharmaceuticals63%
for the petitioner · 1,072 votes
59%
Economic Activity · 249 votes
75%
lower court conservative · 543 votes
3 / 5
questions at Hikma / Amarin
Hikma Pharmaceuticals ✓
Neil M. Gorsuch
Republican appointee · since OT2016

Justice Gorsuch often favors a textualist and originalist approach, which would lead him to scrutinize the plain meaning of 'active inducement' and the statutory framework of the Hatch-Waxman Act.

76% Hikma Pharmaceuticals65%
for the petitioner · 592 votes
60%
Economic Activity · 141 votes
59%
lower court conservative · 286 votes
0 / 18
questions at Hikma / Amarin
Hikma Pharmaceuticals ✓
Brett M. Kavanaugh
Republican appointee · since OT2018

Justice Kavanaugh often seeks to provide clear rules for lower courts and may look for an interpretation that offers predictability in the pharmaceutical industry regarding generic drug marketing.

76% Hikma Pharmaceuticals69%
for the petitioner · 498 votes
68%
Economic Activity · 123 votes
62%
lower court conservative · 244 votes
2 / 13
questions at Hikma / Amarin
Hikma Pharmaceuticals ✓
Amy Coney Barrett
Republican appointee · since OT2020

Justice Barrett typically emphasizes textual fidelity and may focus on the precise language of the patent infringement statutes and the Hatch-Waxman Act to determine the boundaries of induced infringement.

71% Hikma Pharmaceuticals66%
for the petitioner · 360 votes
65%
Economic Activity · 85 votes
60%
lower court conservative · 178 votes
0 / 6
questions at Hikma / Amarin
Hikma Pharmaceuticals ✓
Ketanji Brown Jackson
Democratic appointee · since OT2022

Justice Jackson often considers the practical effects of legal interpretations and may be inclined to support an outcome that aligns with the Hatch-Waxman Act's goal of promoting generic drug competition, while also respecting patent rights.

76% Hikma Pharmaceuticals59%
for the petitioner · 244 votes
55%
Economic Activity · 62 votes
80%
lower court conservative · 127 votes
7 / 9
questions at Hikma / Amarin
Hikma Pharmaceuticals ✓

Rates are each justice's own participation record in the Supreme Court Database, the same history the model trains on; a rate on fewer than five votes is not shown. The predicted vote is VotePredictor SCOTUS' per-justice probability from the served model, which also reads the bench-wide transcript signal and how long each side held the podium.

Every call this term, justice by justice · how the model is built and its record. Data as of 2026-10-02.