Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA Inc. v. Amarin Pharma, Inc. · ¶28

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 defning “active steps” thus governs the boundaries of a plausible induced- infringement claim. Most fundamentally, “inducement must involve the taking of affrmative,” as opposed to passive, “steps to bring about the desired result” of patent infringement. Global-Tech, 563 U. S., at 760; see also Grokster, 545 U. S., at 935 (requiring “statements or actions directed to promoting infringement”); Cox Communications, 607 U. S., at 595 (citing lack of “evidence of express promotion [or] marketing” as a reason for no liability (internal quotation marks omitted)). To avoid “trenching on regular commerce,” “ordinary acts…

preliminary print (page proof)
Source edition
Passage preview. Read in context for the complete text, notes and references.