Amarin Corp Plc (AMRN)

[sts66]

Interesting scenario with NAPA and that bearing - I hope this isn't how AMRN's lawsuit is decided - but in your case I can find nobody to blame from manufacturer to seller - however, if NAPA has a catalog that says the patented tractor bearing is equivalent and exchangeable with the generic bearing used in cars, then NAPA would be guilty of promoting infringement - but only if they sell the generic bearing to somebody who they know will use it in a tractor. Problem is how does the NAPA clerk know what you're going to do with the bearing? I think the pharmacist is the clerk here - what would be a clear infringement case is if an insurance company was paying to repair that tractor, or the tractor manufacturer was covering a warrantee claim, and they sold you/covered the generic car part instead of the patented tractor part, or only offered to pay for the generic part (refused to pay for the patented part).