Federal Circuit Goes for it on Fourth Down – Decides That Inducement Under § 271(b) Requires Specific Intent to Cause Direct Infringement


After “punting” on the issue in a series of decisions,[fn1] the Federal Circuit recently clarified the “mens rea” required for inducement of infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b). In DSU Medical Corp. v. JMS Co. Ltd., 471 F.3d 1293 (Fed. Cir. 2006), the Federal Circuit held en banc that the intent required for inducement is to cause another to infringe the patent – not merely the intent to cause the

acts that happen to constitute infringement:

“[T]he intent requirement for inducement requires more than just intent to cause the acts that produce direct infringement. Beyond that threshold knowledge, the inducer must have an affirmative intent to cause direct infringement.” DSU, 471 F.3d at 1306 (en banc).

“[I]nducement requires evidence of culpable conduct, directed to encouraging another’s infringement, not merely that the inducer had knowledge of the direct infringer’s activities.” Id. (en banc) (citing Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios, Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd., 125 S. Ct. 2764, 2780

(2005) and Manville Sales Corp. v. Paramount Systems, Inc., 917 F.2d 544, 553 (Fed. Cir. 1990)).

LOADING PDF: If there are any problems, click here to download the file.

Written by:


Morrison & Foerster LLP on:

Readers' Choice 2017
Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:

Sign up to create your digest using LinkedIn*

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.

Already signed up? Log in here

*With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name. Or, sign up using your email address.