Skip to content
Project Curia
Supreme Court decisions
No. 24-889Jun 4, 2026HealthReversed

The question

Whether Amarin plausibly alleged that Hikma took active steps to encourage infringing use of Amarin's method-of-use patents, as required to state a claim for active inducement of patent infringement under 35 U.S.C. §271(b).

Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA Inc. v. Amarin Pharma, Inc.

What the Court decided

The Court ruled for Hikma and held that Amarin's complaint cannot survive Hikma's motion to dismiss. Active inducement under §271(b) requires active steps to encourage direct infringement, meaning purposeful and culpable conduct, not ordinary acts incident to product distribution. Amarin alleged only vague statements combined with speculation about how others might act, which does not plausibly show that Hikma actively encouraged infringing use. Amarin therefore failed to state a claim.

How the justices split

Unanimous
In favor 9
Jackson
Roberts
Thomas
Alito
Sotomayor
Kagan
Gorsuch
Kavanaugh
Barrett

The Court's opinion

Jackson, joined by Roberts, Thomas, Alito, Sotomayor, Kagan, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, Barrett

Active inducement under §271(b) requires direct infringement by a third party, knowledge that the induced acts constitute infringement, and active steps to encourage direct infringement. Active steps mean purposeful and culpable expression and conduct and exclude ordinary acts incident to product distribution. Allegations of active steps cannot rest only on vague language combined with speculation about how others may act. Several of Hikma's statements had an obvious alternative explanation in legal compliance or standard industry practice. Amarin failed to allege more than a sheer possibility that Hikma actively induced infringement, so its complaint cannot withstand the motion to dismiss.

How we know · 5 sourced claims
  • The Court held that Amarin failed to state a claim for active inducement under 35 U.S.C. §271(b), so its complaint cannot withstand Hikma's motion to dismiss.

    Source: syllabus, Held

  • Active inducement under §271(b) requires direct infringement by a third party, knowledge that the induced acts constitute infringement, and active steps to encourage direct infringement.

    Source: syllabus, Held

  • Active steps involve purposeful, culpable expression and conduct and exclude ordinary acts incident to product distribution.

    Source: syllabus, Held

  • Allegations of active steps cannot be based only on vague language combined with speculation about how others may act.

    Source: syllabus, Held

  • Justice Jackson delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court.

    Source: syllabus, lineup

Read the opinion on supremecourt.gov