Peter Sullivan, partner and co-chair of the firm’s PTAB Proceedings practice group, commented in Law360 on the U.S. Supreme Court’s June 4 decision in Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA Inc. v. Amarin Pharma Inc., which raises the bar for pleading induced patent infringement claims across industries.

Sullivan emphasized that, despite widespread attention from the pharmaceutical sector, the ruling carries far broader implications. “This wasn't a life sciences case to me,” he said, but will apply to any case alleging induced infringement. 

The Supreme Court held that a plaintiff must plausibly allege that a defendant took “affirmative steps” to encourage infringement, rejecting theories based on indirect or inferred encouragement. According to Sullivan, the decision underscores that inducement can still be proven through implicit, but clearly intentional, conduct. “It doesn't have to be express, it can be implied, and sometimes you build implication through what the internal documents say,” he explained.

Sullivan also noted that the Court’s alignment of patent law with principles from copyright and antitrust pleading standards provides useful guidance for practitioners. By reinforcing the need for plausible, well-supported allegations, the decision is expected to shape how induced infringement claims are evaluated in cases involving technologies far beyond pharmaceuticals, including software, medical devices and other industries.

Read the full Law360 article.