Stephanie Shields v. Ida Mae Clark

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• noting that “we turn to Grokster and its analysis of the law of active inducement,” quoting Grokster, and stating that inducement requires evidence of promotion, active steps, or encouragement
• upholding district court’s decision to grant summary judgment of non-infringement where patentee did not present evidence that alleged infringer tested any accused products
• preventing a defendant from “escap[ing] liability as a contributory infringer merely by embedding that microcontroller in a larger product with some additional, separable feature before importing and selling it”
• the sale or offer for sale of software that causes the accused device to perform the claimed method is not enough to prove infringement of a method claim
• “a finding of inducement requires a threshold finding of direct infringement—either a finding of specific instances of direct infringement or a finding that the accused products necessarily infringe.”
• “a component, specially adapted for use in the patented process and with no substantial noninfringing use, would plainly be ‘good for nothing else’ but infringement of the patented process”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).