District Court: ANDA Label including Non-Infringing Uses is Not Sufficient to Induce Infringement

April 1, 2024

Reading Time : 3 min

In a Hatch-Waxman case, the District Court for the District of New Jersey recently found that a generic label that included an allegedly infringing permissive use did not induce infringement where the label cautioned against that use and provided non-infringing alternatives. The district court additionally found no direct infringement where the patentee failed to present evidence that the claimed methods had ever been practiced or that infringement is likely to occur in the future.

The Court held a bench trial on the sole issue of induced infringement. Both patents-in-suit relate to methods of treating Cushing’s syndrome by coadministering mifepristone and a strong CY3PA inhibitor. The relevant claims are directed to methods of administering specific doses of the two molecules, after titrating down from a higher dose of mifepristone.

In post-trial briefing the parties disputed whether the patentee proved either direct infringement or the specific intent necessary to establish that the defendant induced infringement.

Regarding direct infringement, the district court found the lack of evidence demonstrating that anyone had ever practiced the claimed methods—including during the 10-year span since the branded drug was approved—was persuasive evidence that supported a finding of no direct infringement. The district court also considered whether infringement was likely to occur in the future. First, the district court found that direct infringement would not be likely to occur even if a physician consulted the generic label because the label cautioned against co-administration of mifepristone. Second, the dosage and sequence claim requirements were not likely to be met because, even when following the label, a physician would not infringe if the mifepristone dosage was below the claimed amount or if the strong CYP3A inhibitor was given to a patient who is already taking a lower dose of mifepristone. Third, the district court credited expert testimony indicating that doctors would be reluctant to co-administer mifepristone with a CY3PA inhibitor due to difficulties with dosing and the risk of serious side effects. Finally, the availability of at least one non-infringing alternative to mifepristone that does not pose the same risks made it unlikely that physicians would directly infringe the claims in the future. Based on all of the above findings, the court concluded that the patentee did not meet its burden to prove that direct infringement was likely. 

Although the court held that direct infringement was not proven, it completed its analysis by examining whether the defendant specifically induced infringement by providing the proposed generic label. The court found that because the generic label only provided general instructions on how to administer the combination if a physician deems it medically necessary without specific guidance leading to the claimed dosages, it could not be said to encourage direct infringement. The court was thus unwilling to infer intent from mere guidance, particularly because the label did not outline benefits of the treatment, indicate circumstances where the treatment would be appropriate, or guarantee use of the claimed doses, and warned against co-administration of the drugs. These facts, coupled with the existence of non-infringing alternatives, led the court to conclude that the patentee failed to prove the defendant had the specific intent to induce infringement. The court also rejected the patentee’s argument that a failure to seek an alternative label supports an inference of intent, noting that “requiring an ANDA applicant to modify its product label to avoid direct infringement” would turn the test for inducement “on its head.”

Practice Tip: Where patent claims are directed to methods or dosages that are permissive according to a label, evidence of actual use may be particularly important even for claims of indirect infringement.  Likewise, evidence reflecting the existence and prevalence of non-infringing alternatives can weigh heavily in determining whether a party possesses the specific intent to induce infringement.

Share This Insight

Previous Entries

IP Newsflash

August 6, 2025

In ruling on a recent motion to strike, a judge in the Eastern District of Texas permitted a damages expert to rely on a damages theory based on defendant’s “avoided costs,” holding that this theory did not run afoul of the “entire market value rule.”

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

August 5, 2025

The Federal Circuit recently vacated a decision by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board after concluding that the board’s analysis of licensing evidence offered as a secondary consideration of nonobviousness constituted legal error and was not supported by substantial evidence. According to the court, the board applied a more exacting and improperly heightened nexus standard than is required by law for license evidence.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

August 5, 2025

A Northern District of California judge recently granted a motion to reconsider his summary judgment ruling that defendant was barred from raising certain “device art” due to IPR estoppel under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2). In the original ruling, the judge adopted the broader rule that IPR estoppel applies to device art that is “materially identical” to patents or printed publications that petitioners raised, or could have raised, in an IPR. Following that ruling, however, the Federal Circuit issued its Ingenico decision adopting the narrower view that IPR estoppel applies only to “grounds” based on patents and printed publications and not to device-based grounds. Citing Ingenico as a “change of law,” defendant moved for reconsideration of the court’s ruling, and the court granted the motion.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

August 5, 2025

In a recent decision designated as Informative, the USPTO Director determined that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board abused its discretion by instituting two inter partes review proceedings challenging the same patent, based on petitions advancing different constructions of the same claim term. The Director expressed concerns that permitting multiple petitions based on alternative claim constructions effectively circumvents word count limitations, strains board resources, and undermines procedural efficiency.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

July 25, 2025

Earlier this year, the Federal Circuit’s decision in Qualcomm Inc. v. Apple Inc. (Qualcomm II) raised questions about the extent to which petitioners can rely on applicant admitted prior art (“AAPA”) in inter partes review proceedings.  The Federal Circuit’s recent decision in Shockwave Medical, Inc. v. Cardiovascular Sys., Inc. largely cabins the Qualcomm II decision to its particular facts and makes clear that AAPA can be used as evidence of background knowledge as part of an obviousness argument.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

July 11, 2025

The Federal Circuit recently reversed a PTAB determination on remand that a patent was obvious over applicant admitted prior art (“AAPA”) in combination with prior art patents, holding that expressly designating AAPA as a “basis” for a ground is improper under 35 U.S.C. § 311(b). In doing so, the Court rejected the PTAB’s “blanket rule” that “AAPA used in combination with prior art patents or printed publications under § 311(b) is ipso facto not the basis or part of the basis of a ground.” Ultimately, while the case clarifies that expressly listing AAPA in an IPR ground is improper, the precise line between proper and improper uses of AAPA in other instances remains unclear.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

July 1, 2025

In an appeal from an inter partes review, the Federal Circuit recently clarified that the enablement inquiry applied to prior art references in the context of an anticipation defense differs from the enablement inquiry applied when evaluating the claims of a patent.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

June 26, 2025

The Northern District of Ohio denied a motion to compel the plaintiff to produce test results referenced in its initial disclosures and complaint. The court found that because the “test results are not facts but rather are opinions,” the information was protected as work product. Furthermore, because that testing would not be used as evidence in the litigation, the defendant was not prejudiced.

...

Read More

© 2025 Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP. All rights reserved. Attorney advertising. This document is distributed for informational use only; it does not constitute legal advice and should not be used as such. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Akin is the practicing name of Akin Gump LLP, a New York limited liability partnership authorized and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority under number 267321. A list of the partners is available for inspection at Eighth Floor, Ten Bishops Square, London E1 6EG. For more information about Akin Gump LLP, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP and other associated entities under which the Akin Gump network operates worldwide, please see our Legal Notices page.