Chad Landmon discusses the U.S. Supreme Court’s review of the closely watched Hikma v. Amarin case, which could redefine how “skinny label” generic drugs are evaluated for induced patent infringement. He explains that the dispute centers on whether generic manufacturers can still face liability based on marketing statements and other conduct, even when patented uses are carved out of their labels. Landmon notes that the Court’s decision could significantly impact labeling, marketing and litigation strategies across the pharmaceutical and biosimilar industries by clarifying the boundaries of induced infringement law.