Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA Inc. v. Amarin Pharma, Inc. · ¶26

This case requires us to apply these familiar pleading standards to the third element of an induced-infringement claim: that the inducer took “active steps . . . to encourage direct infringement.” Grokster, 545 U. S., at 936 (internal quotation marks omitted). Our case law defining “active steps” thus governs the boundaries of a plausible induced- infringement claim. Most fundamentally, “inducement must involve the taking of affirmative,” as opposed to passive, “steps to bring about the desired result” of patent infringement. Global-Tech., 563 U. S., at 760; see also Grok ster, 545 U. S., at 935 (requiring “statements or actions directed to promoting infringement”); Cox Communica tions, 607 U. S., at ＿＿＿ (slip op., at 9) (citing lack of “evidence of express promotion [or] marketing” as a reason for no liability (internal quotation marks omitted)). To avoid “trenching on regular…

slip opinion
Source edition
Passage preview. Read in context for the complete text, notes and references.