However I think the first part "I am not aware anything like this" made it clear. Furthermore, I said later
But it was my fault (typo).
Hikma does not have to anything against direct infringement, it is not his liability ... but he is not allowed do - legally - anything FOR infringement
These do not have any nexus with contributory infringement. These - could be - the proof (circumstantial evidence of inducement of infringement. The court will decide. (Please note: acc. to my best knowledge the jury is the part of the court ... Furthermore, the jury verdict is not necessarily the final verdict ... see Teva vs GSK: the judge overruled the jury.)
Yes, it is - could be - act of CI but does not have any nexus with inducement.
To reduce any chance of liability for contributing to infringement they did not have to any special, existence of substantial non-infringing use is enough this type of liability. The skinny label(ing) itself is a non-infringing use ...
Nope. Those that want to sell into a skinny label is not entitled (it is forbidden for them) to do anything in their power to encourage the infringing uses. They do not have to do anything against it, do not have to discourage and prevent infringing uses.
Again, sorry for my typo ... Hikma does NOT claim any blindness.
It’s only about what they say and do ... ----- rafunrafun #326606
I do not see any reference or a context re. Singer's cited (?) words in your reply ... -----