After Hikma: Skinny Labels, Inducement and the Future of Method-of-Treatment Patents

The Supreme Court’s unanimous 2026 decision in Hikma v. Amarin reset the framework for pleading induced infringement in skinny-label cases. The Court held that the relevant question is whether a patent owner plausibly alleges that the defendant took affirmative steps to encourage infringement—not merely whether physicians could plausibly interpret statements as encouraging an infringing use. At the same time, the Court did not create categorical immunity for generic manufacturers operating with skinny labels.

This panel will examine what Hikma means for both innovators and generic manufacturers. What conduct can still constitute an affirmative step to induce infringement? How should patent owners investigate, plead and ultimately prove inducement? What significance should be assigned to labels, websites, press releases, therapeutic-equivalence statements and other communications? And what does the decision mean for the practical value of method-of-treatment patents protecting later-discovered indications? Panelists will explore litigation strategy after Hikma and the larger implications for companies investing substantial resources in clinical trials necessary to discover and validate new therapeutic uses for existing medicines.