Inducement and Indirect Infringement: A Muddle after NuVasive?

//Inducement and Indirect Infringement: A Muddle after NuVasive?

Inducement and Indirect Infringement: A Muddle after NuVasive?

Inducement and Indirect Infringement: A Muddle after NuVasive?

What is the current state of the law regarding inducement and indirect infringement? Confused, or so one would surmise after reading Judge Reyna’s concurrence in the recent Federal Circuit opinion in Warsaw Orthopedic v. NuVasive.According to that concurrence, the majority opinion is difficult to harmonize with Commil and Global-Tech, two of the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decisions on this patent law topic. And experts say unanswered questions remain about how to prove intent to induce and what constitutes willful blindness.

Our panel includes two litigators, one with experience representing plaintiffs in such cases and the other representing defendants, as well as a law professor who is an expert in inducement and whose work has been cited favorably by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. They will review the state of the law and give specific current guidance for both plaintiffs and defendants at each stage of litigation involving inducement: pre-complaint, motion to dismiss, discovery, summary judgment, trial, and remedy. They will also discuss the future direction of the law.

Speakers:

John Campbell, McKool Smith
Prof. Tim Holbrook, Emory University School of Law
Blair Jacobs, Paul Hastings LLP