Heritage Mut. Ins. Co. v. Advanced Polymer Tech., 97 F. Supp. 2d 913, 921 n.5 (S.D. Ind. Div. 2000) (Expert)

(Expert) Heritage Mut. Ins. Co. v. Advanced Polymer Tech., 97 F. Supp. 2d 913, 921 n.5 (S.D. Ind. Div. 2000) ("We will sue without deciding that direct and induced patent infringement offenses could occur in the course of advertising.... [I]nduced patent infringement may occur in the course of advertising, although an induced infringement claim is still predicated on underlying direct infringement by the induced actor. We also note the effective January 1, 1996 ... Congress modified that the definition of patent infringement to include "offers to sell," a change that at least one court has found relevant to deciding whether patent infringement is the type of offense that could occur in the course of advertising. See Everett Associates Inc. v. Transcontinental Ins. Co., 57 F. Supp. 2d 874, 881 (N.D. Cal. 1999; 35 U.S.C. § 271(a), "Whoever without authority makes, uses [offers to sell], or sells any patented invention, ... during the term of the patent therefore, infringes the patent....") (David A. Gauntlett offered testimony at trial on the history of First Publication Exclusion.)