Supreme Court of the United States · Official docket →
Amarin Pharma, Inc., et al. v. Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA Inc., et al.
Paid petition · United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, No. 2020-1723, 2020-1901 · judgment September 3, 2020
Before the decision, about 1.9× the 4.1% base rate. The model weighted this up for counsel who has won certiorari before, a dissent in the court below (flagged in the petition), and a Federal Circuit decision below, and down for a business respondent.
Question presented
In Graham v. John Deere Co. of Kansas City, 383 U.S. 1 (1966), this Court established four factors that a court must consider in determining whether a patent is obvious and therefore unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Three of those factors relate to technical differences between the invention and the prior art. The fourth factor concerns objective facts indicating that the field of art did not treat the claimed invention as obvious. These objective indicia include long-felt but unresolved needs ultimately addressed by the invention, failure of others to make the invention, and commercial success of products embodying the invention. This Court has made clear that objective indicia must be considered along with the other factors before concluding that any invention is obvious, so that real world indicators—which are often the strongest evidence of nonobviousness—may guard against the risk that patents will incorrectly appear obvious in hindsight. The Federal Circuit has improperly relegated objective indicia of nonobviousness to a secondary role. Under the Federal Circuit’s framework, a court first considers only the three technical Graham factors and reaches a conclusion of “prima facie” obviousness. Only then does the court consider objective indicia, merely as a basis for rebutting a conclusion already reached. The result is over-invalidation of patents through hindsight bias and the suppression of innovation. The question presented is: Whether a court must consider objective indicia of nonobviousness together with the other factors bearing on an obviousness challenge before making any obviousness determination. (i)
Counsel of record
For petitioner
Seth P. Waxman
Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP
For respondent
Charles Bennett Klein
Winston & Strawn LLP
Case
Conference history
Distributed for 2 conferences
Amicus briefs
3 cert-stage
Proceedings
- Jun 21 2021Petition DENIED.
- Jun 01 2021DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 6/17/2021.
- Jun 01 2021Reply of petitioners Amarin Pharma, Inc., et al. filed. (Distributed)
- May 18 2021Brief of respondent Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA Inc., Hikma Pharmaceuticals International Limited in opposition filed.
- Apr 07 2021Response to motion from petitioner Amarin Pharma, Inc., et al. filed.
- Apr 07 2021Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted in part and the time is extended to and including May 18, 2021.
- Apr 06 2021Motion to extend the time to file a response from April 29, 2021 to June 14, 2021, submitted to The Clerk.
- Mar 30 2021Response Requested. (Due April 29, 2021)
- Mar 24 2021DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 4/16/2021.
- Mar 04 2021Brief amicus curiae of Aimed Alliance filed.
- Mar 01 2021Brief amicus curiae of LiquidPower Specialty Products Inc. filed.
- Feb 24 2021Waiver of right of respondents Dr. Reddy's Laboratories, Inc. and Dr. Reddy's Laboratories, Ltd. to respond filed.
- Feb 23 2021Waiver of right of respondent Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA Inc., Hikma Pharmaceuticals International Limited to respond filed.
- Feb 23 2021Brief amicus curiae of US Inventor Inc. filed.
- Feb 11 2021Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due March 18, 2021)