It has now been more than a year since the Federal Circuit
rendered its decision in the Commil case providing a
defense to the intent prong for active inducement of patent claims.
At the time of the decision there were a number of articles touting
the "new" defense and opining that it would have a large
impact on patent cases. A current search of the case law, however,
shows that there have been fewer than 10 court decisions
post-Commil that reference this defense. Practitioners
defending against claims of induced infringement would do well to
reacquaint themselves with the Commil defense and to
consider whether it could be employed for their cases.
In Commil, the Federal Circuit held that evidence of an
accused inducer's good-faith belief of invalidity may negate
the requisite intent for induced infringement. Commil USA, LLC
v. Cisco Sys., Inc., 720 F.3d 1361, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2013).
Accordingly, one could be aware of a patent and induce another to
perform the steps
