Meanwhile I did not put a smiley @ the end of my post … you "should" see the "severity" based on my "Luke reference". I was sure - and LMAO - that it was an unintentional mistake (wrong copy and paste).
I interpret your daughter 's view / opinion (based on your post … and other posts) as:
"obviousness": she agrees with me ("strong arguments regarding the non-obviousness issue") … with what I wrote "They refer to small studies, small pieces (as prior art) that are - maximum - good to raise questions, to establish theories but these are not (are far away from) a “clear-and-convincing-evidence(s)”, does not prove anything."
"inducement":
(i) contributory: "I disagree with is his conclusion regarding contributory infringement. I was able to find some case law that the existence of a substantial non-infringing use does not preclude a finding of inducement."
I did not conclude anything about contributory infringement, since it was a done deal at the time of my post … the Court granted Generics summary judgment that, they do not contributorily infringe Plaintiffs’ Asserted Claims. (She mentioned it also: "However, due to the fact that the judge granted summary judgment to the defendants on this issue, it is no longer contested, i.e., the defendants have won on this sub-issue.").
(ii) inducement: "I disagree with is his conclusion regarding contributory infringement. I was able to find some case law that the existence of a substantial non-infringing use does not preclude a finding of inducement."
I think she was in a hurry … mixing contributory and inducement … but concluded the same. One of my reason / argument was (re. inducement)