Editing Openai/69668f73-ea68-800d-ac56-44a64b19dae4 (section)

==== ### ====

They strongly supported the line of cases that narrowed what is patentable, especially in biotech / diagnostics / software:
* Mayo v. Prometheus (2012) — invalidated diagnostic method patents
* Alice v. CLS Bank (2014) — invalidated abstract software patents

Sotomayor and Kagan were fully on board with tightening eligibility.

They tend to view broad eligibility as:
* Leading to rent-seeking
* Blocking follow-on innovation
* Creating litigation instead of progress

This has been devastating for parts of biotech and diagnostics — and they have not shown regret about that.

===== They are cautious about strong remedies: =====
* Skeptical of automatic injunctions (eBay v. MercExchange)
* Skeptical of large damages awards
* Concerned about patent litigation being used strategically or coercively

They tend to favor:
* Flexible, equitable standards
* Limiting leverage of patent holders when it harms competition

===== They are generally: =====
* Pro-generic entry
* Anti-“evergreening” strategies
* Sensitive to drug pricing and access issues

They are often sympathetic to arguments that brand-name pharma overuses patents to extend monopolies.

However — and this matters for Amarin — they also care about:
* Truthful labeling
* Regulatory integrity
* Not allowing companies to game the system through deception

So their instinct is not “generics always win” — it’s:

: