Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA Inc. v. Amarin Pharma, Inc. · ¶29

All in all, inducement cannot be based only on “vague” language “combined with speculation about how [others] may act.” Takeda Pharmaceuticals U. S. A., Inc. v. West- Ward Pharmaceutical Corp., 785 F. 3d 625, 632 (CA Fed. 2015); see also Grokster, 545 U. S., at 937 (requiring “purposeful, culpable expression and conduct”). That said, Hikma overshoots by urging that active inducement must be “express.” See Reply Brief 22–23. A defendant can achieve active inducement through implicit encouragement, as StreamCast did through the “suggestiv[e]” name of its “OpenNap program.” Grokster, 545 U. S., at 937, 938. But implicit or explicit, the necessary inducement must be “clear” to the relevant audience and “affirmative.” See id., at 937.

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