`
`4.4. CONTRIBUTORY INFRINGEMENT
`
`ME2C also asserts that each CERT RC Defendant has contributed to infringement by
`
`power plants. As with induced infringement, you must determine whether there has been
`
`contributory infringement by each of the CERT RC Defendants on a Defendant-by-Defendant and
`
`claim-by-claim basis. The CERT RC Defendants are Senescence Energy Products LLC, Bascobert
`
`(A) Holdings LLC, Buffington Partners LLC, Larkwood Energy LLC, Rutledge Products LLC,
`
`Cottbus Associates LLC, Springhill Resources LLC, and Marquis Industrial Company LLC. There
`
`is not a contributory infringement claim against the CERT Operations Defendants. A given CERT
`
`RC Defendant is liable for contributory infringement of a given claim only if ME2C proves by a
`
`preponderance of the evidence each of the following:
`
`1. that a power plant has directly infringed one or more claims of an asserted ME2C patent;
`
`2. that the Defendant sold that power plant refined coal made with calcium bromide;
`
`3. that the refined coal supplied to that power plant, as sold and delivered during the
`
`damages period, is not a staple article or commodity of commerce capable of substantial non-
`
`infringing use;
`
`4. that the refined coal constituted a material part of the claimed invention; and
`
`5. that the Defendant knew that the refined coal was especially made or adapted for use in
`
`an infringing method.
`
`A “staple article or commodity of commerce capable of substantial non-infringing use” is
`
`something that had uses other than as a part or component of the asserted claim, and those other
`
`uses were not occasional, farfetched, impractical, experimental, or hypothetical.
`
`The Defendant’s knowledge that the component was especially made or adapted for use in
`
`an infringing method may be shown with evidence of willful blindness, as I previously explained
`
`when discussing induced infringement. To find willful blindness, the Defendant must have
`
`
`
`Case 1:19-cv-01334-CJB Document 679 Filed 02/23/24 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 17787
`
`believed that there was a high probability that a patent existed covering the accused method and
`
`must have taken deliberate actions to avoid learning of the patent.
`
`Contributory infringement requires only proof of a Defendant’s knowledge, not intent, that
`
`the activity causes infringement.
`
`Proof that the Defendant knew its activity might infringe is not sufficient to show
`
`contributory infringement. Similarly, if a Defendant reasonably believed it did not infringe, even
`
`if that belief was incorrect, the Defendant does not have knowledge of infringement. Instead,
`
`contributory infringement requires proof the Defendant actually knew the acts were infringing.
`
`However, a belief that a patent is invalid is not a defense to contributory infringement.
`
`
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
