MEMC Electronic Materials v. Mitsubishi

MMEC holds a U.S. patent claiming a 'method of preparing a single crystal silicon that is substantially free of agglomerated intrinsic point defects.' SUMCO manufactures allegedly infringing wafers in Japan and sells them to Samsung Japan, who then sells them to Samsung Austin. After affirming that SUMCO did not literal infringebecause no sales or offers for sale ocurred in the U.S., the C.A.F.C. went on to reverse the holding of summary judgement because there was at least some evidence that 1) SUMCO had actual knowledge of the MEMC patent, 2) SUMCO may have sent a shipment of wafers directly to Samsung Austin, 3) SUMCO personnel made on-site visits and presented technical information, and 4) Samsung Austin required technical support from SUMCO. Together, these provide relevant circumstantial evidence to show intent to induce and support a finding of inducement.
See also,

• MP3: MEMC Electronic Materials v. Mitsubishi (Fed. Cir. 2005) (citations omitted)
• PDF: MEMC Electronic Materials v. Mitsubishi (Fed. Cir. 2005) (full text)
• Patently-O: Silicon Wafer Technology: Reasonable Jury Could Find Inducement
• I/P Updates: Knowledge of Importation of Product Sold Overseas Not Infringement under §271(a)
• IP Law Observer: Technical Support Offered in the United States Plus Knowledge of the Patent Could Allow Jury to Find Inducement of Infringement
• Silcon Valley Media Law Blog: Grokster cited in patent inducement case
• IP Biz: CAFC gives MEMC chance on inducement