Replies to post #332307 on Amarin Corp Plc (AMRN)

[HDGabor]

Exactly ... as I said: Mere knowledge (or willful blindness) is not enough ...

“whoever actively induces infringement of a patent shall be liable as an infringer.” ... A patent inducement cause of action has a knowledge and intent element indicated by the requirement for “active” inducement in the statute. The Federal Circuit in 2006 held in DSU Medical Corp. v. JMS Co. that the intent requirement for inducing acts of inducement required that the alleged inducer knew or should have known his actions would induce actual infringement. In addition, the inducer must have had an affirmative intent to cause direct infringement ... ... Liability for inducement requires affirmative conduct by the alleged inducer and is construed broadly

Did you "read" it, before posted ... ?

[dukesking]

Mateo, excellent summary on infringement. Hikma may( should)be found liable for contributory and induced infringement based on circumstantial evidence, direct actions taken, and willful blindness even if they aren’t directly infringing themselves because others are. It’s clearly stated in the first paragraph and throughout the article that all it takes is for somebody to be directly infringing the patent. Hikma is the patent troll described in this article. Insurance companies are directly infringing valid patents for CVD protected scripts and Hikma is guilty of having knowledge of the infringement or likelihood of infringement (willful blindness) and for inducement and or contributory infringement based on multiple other circumstantial evidence. I may be wrong as I’m not trained in law but this is how I see it. FWIW. Similar to Global Tech v SEB. (HDG, I know you disagree so we’ll agree to disagree.)