Inducement under 271(b) - Respondent Akamai's best argument

JUSTICE SCALIA:  What does ­­ what does (b) [knowingly inducing patent infringement liability] require? Does it require inducing an infringement or inducing an infringer? 

MR. WAXMAN [Respondent Akamai]:   Inducing an infringement.  

And I'll give you a concrete example.  

Let's say that there's a five­step patented method that I know about, and I convince ­­I induce Mr. Panner to do steps 1, 2, and 3 and Ms. Anders to do steps 4 and 5.  If I'm doing that because I know about the patent and I want to take advantage of their otherwise innocent performance collectively of the steps, at common law and at patent law, it was uncontroversial that I was liable.  I was responsible. 

[...] [T]he common law made ­­ the cases going back made clear that there was no escape from liability even though neither Mr. Panner nor Ms. Anders may be directly liable if they didn't know that each other was doing the steps or otherwise cooperate with each other.  And that's what this case is.  And that's why the Federal Circuit's decision on its own terms is correct. 

Transcript at 50.