Devoted to Corporate Attorneys, Corporate Lawyers, and Corporate Counsel

The following is not meant to be legal advice.

On December 13, 2006, the Federal Circuit resolved a split in authority over the standard for proving inducement of patent infringement.  Prior to December 2006, the Federal Circuit had issued contrary opinions, holding in one case, that intent to infringe was required to prove inducement, and, in another case, that only intent to cause the acts constituting infringement was required. 

These cases were:  Manville Sales Corp. v. Paramount Systems, Inc., 917 F.2d 544, 554 (Fed. Cir. 1990) and Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb, Inc., 909 F.2d 1464 (Fed. Cir. 1990). 

Under section 271(b), "[w]hoever actively induces infringement of a patent shall be liable as an infringer."  35 U.S.C. § 271(b).  A party is traditionally liable for direct patent infringement only when it makes, uses, sells, offers for sale or imports an infringing product into the United States, or supplies substantial components of that product for export from the United States.  Section 271(b) extends the reach of U.S. patent laws.  The Section imposes liability for the direct infringement of others.  The alleged inducer must have knowledge of the patent and must also believe that the induced activities are infringing.