GlaxoSmithKline II and Other Recent Developments in Induced and Contributory Patent Infringement

Publication Date


Document Type



In a 2020 Holman Report, entitled GlaxoSmithKline v. Teva: Holding a Generic Liable for an Artificial Act of Inducement, I reviewed a controversial Federal Circuit decision that found a generic company liable for induced patent infringement based on sales of its product under a so-called "skinny label" purporting to carveout the patented indication pursuant to a Section viii statement, as provided for under the Hatch-Waxman Act. Since that time there have been a number of interesting judicial decisions addressing indirect patent infringement in the pharmaceutical and life sciences content, most notably a revised panel decision in GlaxoSmithKline v. Teva that addressed some concerns raised by the panels first decision, but created new concerns that the Solicitor General claims have only "exacerbated" practical concerns raised by the first decision. This installment of the Holman Report reviews several of these post-2020 decisions relating to the two forms of indirect patent infringement, induced and contributory, beginning with the revised panel decision, GlaxoSmithKline II.

Publication Title

Biotechnology Law Report