2/10 UPDATE: GSK v. Teva: The Skinny On Induced Infringement And Label Carve-Outs

 On January 13, we originally posted on this topic. An update was posted on February 5. This post provides the most recent update on this matter.

Yesterday, the Federal Circuit granted Teva’s petition for en banc rehearing.1  The Court ordered the October 2, 2020 judgment reversing the JMOL and remanding for entry of the jury verdict judgment vacated and the October 2, 2020 opinions withdrawn.2  The panel will rehear the appeals on the merits.3

 The en banc oral argument is set for February 23, 2021.4  The Court stated the oral argument will be limited to the following issue raised in Teva’s petition for en banc rehearing: “whether there is substantial evidence to support the jury’s verdict of induced infringement during the time period from January 8, 2008 through April 30, 2011,” finding “all other issues to be sufficiently briefed.”5

We will provide an update following the February 23 oral argument.  Please contact the authors with any questions and stay tuned for updates regarding this important topic.


1See Order On Petition For Rehearing at 2, GlaxoSmithKline LLC v. Teva Pharms. USA, Inc., No. 18-1976 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 9, 2021).

2 Id.




Knowledge assets are defined in the study as confidential information critical to the development, performance and marketing of a company’s core business, other than personal information that would trigger notice requirements under law. For example,
The new study shows dramatic increases in threats and awareness of threats to these “crown jewels,” as well as dramatic improvements in addressing those threats by the highest performing organizations. Awareness of the risk to knowledge assets increased as more respondents acknowledged that their