Whether the “inducement doctrine can be used to nullify a provision of the Hatch-Waxman Amendments.”
Whether when “a product has substantial noninfringing uses and the defendant has deleted instructions to practice the patented method from its labeling, may the plaintiff prove active inducement by claiming that several disparate sections of the labeling ‘met’ or ‘satisfied’ the individual elements of the patented method, or does proof of active inducement require proof that the defendant encouraged the patented method?”
Whether “active inducement and causation are distinct elements of inducement” and when “a jury finds active inducement, may the jury infer that the defendant’s inducement caused direct infringement, even when undisputed evidence shows that the supposedly inducing materials did not influence anyone to infringe?”
