35 U.S.C. § 271(b), “[w]hoever actively induces infringement of a patent shall be liable as an infringer.” “Liability for either active inducement of infringement or for contributory infringement is dependent upon the existence of direct infringement. Thus, either form of ‘dependent infringement’ cannot occur without an act of direct infringement.” Joy Technologies, Inc. v. Flakt, Inc., 6 F.3d 770, 774 (Fed.Cir.1993) (internal citations omitted); see also, DSU Medical Corp. v. JMS Co., Ltd., 471 F.3d 1293, 1303 (Fed.Cir.2006) (“the patentee always has the burden to show direct infringement for each instance of indirect infringement.”) Circumstantial evidence may be sufficient to establish direct infringement. Moleculon Research Corp. v. CBS, Inc., 793 F.2d 1261, 1272 (Fed.Cir.1986) (<HOLDING>). However, even for the purposes of summary
holding that such circumstantial evidence may be used to prove discrimination holding circumstantial evidence has equivalent standing to direct evidence in criminal prosecution holding that evidence that manufacturer included instructional booklet teaching infringing puzzle solution was adequate circumstantial evidence that users solved puzzle according to instructions thus directly infringing patent holding that lack of consent may be established by adequate circumstantial evidence holding that motive is circumstantial evidence of intent