Foreseeable Is Not Inducing: Hikma v. Amarin

WISECODE Take

While this ruling seems specific to pharma patents, it fundamentally clarifies the business boundary of 'induced infringement.' Many businesses mistakenly believe that if a customer's infringing use of their product is 'foreseeable,' the supplier is liable. The US Supreme Court has now rejected this notion. We can view this through the business framework of 'Product Positioning Boundaries.' If you sell a multi-tool, even if you know users might use it to cut a patented material, you are not liable for inducement as long as your official manuals (skinny-label) and marketing never suggest doing so. The court focuses on your 'active marketing,' not the user's 'independent association.' This is a major boon for component suppliers, AI software developers, and generic drugmakers. By decoupling patented features from your marketing, you mitigate US litigation risks. We suggest auditing your product guides and training sales teams to avoid suggestive workarounds. Please consult with us to evaluate your compliance. 'How you market your product dictates how your patent liability is judged.' Chidien IP is here to help you conduct product compliance and patent defense assessments for secure global expansion.