Thank you for the correction between contributory and induced infringement as it relates to substantial non infringing use. I misspoke but that’s what I intended to say. The law isn’t always black and white and wether or not there’s substantial non infringing use, infringement in any form is illegal. An argument can be made that generics are inducing infringement through willful blindness, failure to protect against the infringing use( beyond the label)and the knowledge that patents exist and will be infringed by 3rd parties, and for making available for sale to these parties. See Global-Tex vs SEB.
the word ‘substantial’ has not been quantified or defined so in my mind it’s confusing and still up for debate. I’ve seen ‘ substantial non infringing’ described as ‘any’ use but that’s not the word they use. I think that’s potentially relevant when compared to the amount of non infringing use to infringing use. A subject for the courts and lawyers to debate and resolve. In our case it will be 90/10 infringing use. I know you don’t agree and I accept that I’m untrained in law and may be wrong. I’m hoping the Judges apply common sense to this reality as it’s not clearly addressed in precedence at this point. Completely IMO. Thanks as always.
Substantial: of considerable importance, size, or worth.
Any: used to refer to one or some of a thing or number, no matter how much or how many.
To me, ‘ substantial non infringing use means any use at all, that’s a non infringing use and of considerable importance, size or worth. It’s the second half that’s debatable, particularly when comparing non infringing use to its infringing use. IMO
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
