of actual intent to cause the acts which constitute the infringement is a necessary prerequisite to finding active inducement. 909 F.2d at 1469 (emphasis added). As the cited language plainly indicates, the Court in Hewlett-Packard focused on the defendant’s intent to induce the acts found to be infringing, and not on the defendant’s intent to infringe the patent. See also Orthokinetics, Inc. v. Safety Travel Chairs, Inc., 806 F.2d 1565, 1579 (Fed.Cir.1986) (noting that liability under Section 271(b) does not require conduct rising to the level of willful infringement); Curtis Mfg. Co. v. Plasti-Clip Corp., 888 F.Supp. 1212, 1222-25 (D.N.H.1994); Maxwell v. K Mart, 880 F.Supp. 682, 685 (D.Minn.1995). Cf. Manville Sales Corp. v. Paramount Sys., Inc., 917 F.2d 544, 553 (Fed.Cir.1990) (<HOLDING>); Dynamis, Inc. v. Leepoxy Plastics, Inc., 831
holding that defendant who sets in motion series of events that he knew or should have known would cause others to deprive plaintiff of rights may be liable under  1983 holding that the government must prove actual subjective knowledge and that a defendant may not be convicted on just what he should have known holding that a plaintiff seeking to establish inducement to infringe must show that the alleged infringers actions induced infringing acts and that he knew or should have known his actions would induce actual infringements holding a subordinate will be liable under  1983 for following a superiors orders if he knew or should have known his acts were violating plaintiffs constitutional rights holding danger was so open and obvious to plaintiff that as a matter of law he knew or should have known of danger