NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

LARGAN PRECISION CO., LTD.,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

GENIUS ELECTRONIC OPTICAL CO., LTD.,

Defendant-Appellee

______________________ 

2015-1695

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the 

Northern District of California in No. 3:13-cv-02502-JD, 

Judge James Donato.

______________________ 

Decided: April 27, 2016

______________________ 

DONALD ROBERT DUNNER, Finnegan, Henderson, 

Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP, Washington, DC, 

argued for plaintiff-appellant. Also represented by 

ANDREW JOSEPH VANCE; GARY MA, MING-TAO YANG, Palo 

Alto, CA. 

DAVID E. SIPIORA, Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton 

LLP, Denver, CO, argued for defendant-appellee. Also 

represented by JEFFREY M. CONNOR, KENNETH CHANG,
2 LARGAN PRECISION CO. v. GENIUS ELECTRONIC OPTICAL CO. 

MATTHEW CHRISTIAN HOLOHAN, KRISTOPHER L. REED,

LAURA K. MULLENDORE. 

______________________ 

Before LOURIE, MOORE, and CHEN, Circuit Judges.

MOORE, Circuit Judge. 

Largan Precision Co., Ltd. (“Largan”) appeals a judgment of non-infringement of United States Patent Nos. 

7,826,151; 7,864,454; 8,233,224; 8,310,768; and 8,395,691 

(the “asserted patents”) by the U.S. District Court for the 

Northern District of California. The asserted patents are 

directed to various aspects of camera lenses. Because the 

district court correctly held that no reasonable jury could 

find induced infringement, we affirm. 

BACKGROUND

Largan and Genius Electronic Optical Co., Ltd. (“Genius”) are both Taiwanese companies that supply camera 

lenses for various Apple phones and tablets. Largan and 

Genius represent the first link in Apple’s four-part supply 

chain. Genius manufactures lenses in Asia, and then

sells its lenses to Asian module integrators. The module 

integrators build cameras, and then sell the finished

cameras to system integrators, which are also located in 

Asia. The system integrators incorporate the cameras 

into phones and tablets, which are then sent to Apple for 

sale to end users worldwide. With one minor exception, 

Largan and Genius are the only two lens suppliers for 

Apple products at issue in this case. Apple does not track 

where either supplier’s lenses are sold. 

Largan sued Genius for infringement over eight models of Genius lenses. At issue in this appeal are Largan’s 

allegations of induced infringement. Largan alleged 

Genius induced Apple to infringe the asserted patents by 

placing lenses into Apple’s supply chain that were ultimately incorporated in Apple products sold in the United 
LARGAN PRECISION CO. v. GENIUS ELECTRONIC OPTICAL CO. 3

States. Genius did not dispute that its lenses met every 

limitation of every asserted claim. Rather, Genius argued 

there was no induced infringement because there was no 

evidence of direct infringement by Apple. The district 

court granted summary judgment of no induced infringement, and Largan appealed to this court. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(1).

DISCUSSION

We review summary judgment decisions de novo under Ninth Circuit law. Brilliant Instruments, Inc. v. 

GuideTech, LLC, 707 F.3d 1342, 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2013) 

(citing Greater Yellowstone Coal. v. Lewis, 628 F.3d 1143, 

1148 (9th Cir. 2010)). Summary judgment is appropriate 

if “there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and 

the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). At the summary judgment stage, we 

credit the non-movant’s evidence and “draw all justifiable 

inferences in its favor.” Brilliant Instruments, 707 F.3d at 

1344. 

Induced infringement requires proof of direct infringement by some party. Epcon Gas Sys., Inc. v. Bauer 

Compressors, Inc., 279 F.3d 1022, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 2002). 

To prove induced infringement, a patentee must show 

“the accused inducer took an affirmative act to encourage 

infringement with the knowledge that the induced acts 

constitute patent infringement.” Info-Hold, Inc. v. Muzak 

LLC, 783 F.3d 1365, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (quoting Microsoft Corp. v. DataTern, Inc., 755 F.3d 899, 904 (Fed. 

Cir. 2014)). The knowledge requirement “may be satisfied 

by a showing of actual knowledge or willful blindness.” 

Id. at 1372–73. Willful blindness requires the alleged 

inducer to (1) subjectively believe there is a high probability that a fact exists and (2) take deliberate actions to 

avoid learning of that fact. Global-Tech Appliances, Inc. 

v. SEB S.A., 131 S. Ct. 2060, 2070 (2011). 
4 LARGAN PRECISION CO. v. GENIUS ELECTRONIC OPTICAL CO. 

We hold that the district court properly granted 

summary judgment of no induced infringement because 

Largan failed to offer evidence of direct infringement by 

Apple. Largan did not offer evidence that any Apple 

product sold in the United States contained an accused

Genius lens. Instead, Largan only presented evidence 

that Genius lenses are incorporated in some Apple products manufactured in Asia and that some Apple products 

are sold in the United States. Given the evidence of 

record, which includes the volume of Largan and Genius 

lenses supplied for Apple’s worldwide distribution of 

products, Largan supplies such a large volume of lenses in 

the relevant Apple products that all of those products sold 

in the United States could contain Largan lenses.1

Largan argues it does not need to identify specific 

sales in the United States because “Apple’s supply chain 

randomly selects between Genius’s and Largan’s lenses 

for shipments to the U.S.” Appellant’s Br. 33. It argues 

because the supply chain randomly selects lenses, a 

reasonable jury could find the proportion of Apple phones

and tablets sold in the United States with Genius lenses 

is equal to the proportion of Apple phones and tablets sold 

worldwide with Genius lenses. Therefore, it argues a 

reasonable jury could find direct infringement by Apple.

Circumstantial evidence can be sufficient to prove infringement. See Lucent Techs., Inc. v. Gateway, Inc., 580 

F.3d 1301, 1318–19 (Fed. Cir. 2009). But it is insufficient 

here because Largan’s theory requires Apple’s supply 

chain selection to be random, and Largan failed to pro-

 

1 The district court denied summary judgment on 

products for which the record demonstrated there was a 

question of fact regarding whether Largan made enough 

lenses to cover all United States sales. Largan Precision 

Co. v. Genius Elec. Optical Co., 86 F. Supp. 3d 1105, 1120

(N.D. Cal. 2015).
LARGAN PRECISION CO. v. GENIUS ELECTRONIC OPTICAL CO. 5

duce any evidence that it is random. Largan only presented evidence obtained from Genius and Apple, the first 

and fourth steps in Apple’s supply chain; it never presented evidence from the module integrators (step two) or the 

system integrators (step three). Based on the record 

before us, we cannot infer that the module integrators 

randomly select lenses or that the system integrators 

randomly select cameras because there is no evidence 

about how the module and system integrators operate. 

Largan attempts to establish randomness through 

testimony from Apple, but the testimony it cites does not 

allow the inference that the supply chain is random. 

Apple’s corporate representative testified that Apple does 

not track where a given supplier’s lenses are sold. This 

testimony alone does not prove randomness in the supply 

chain. Evidence that Apple does not track where a supplier’s lenses are sold is not equivalent to evidence that

Apple suppliers treat Largan and Genius lenses interchangeably. In the light most favorable to Largan, the 

evidence shows only that Apple does not place requirements on its suppliers regarding lenses. It says nothing 

about whether the module integrators (step two) or the 

system integrators (step three) randomly select Genius or 

Largan lenses for the Apple products destined for the 

United States. Largan has furnished no evidence that the 

module integrators randomly select lenses or that the 

system integrators randomly select cameras by proving

Apple did not place affirmative requirements on its suppliers’ selections. 

Largan cites O2 Micro as an example of our court affirming a finding of induced infringement based on circumstantial evidence of sales in the United States. See 

O2 Micro Int’l Ltd. v. Beyond Innovation Tech. Co., 449 F. 

App’x 923 (Fed. Cir. 2011). As we discussed in O2 Micro, 

a patentee may rely on circumstantial evidence to show 

that a defendant’s foreign-manufactured components are 

incorporated into products sold in the United States by a 
6 LARGAN PRECISION CO. v. GENIUS ELECTRONIC OPTICAL CO. 

third party. Id. at 929. But O2 Micro is ultimately distinguishable from the present case because there was 

some evidence of United States sales—the parties stipulated that some of the accused components were sold in 

the United States. Id. at 927. Conversely, there is no 

evidence in this record that a single Apple product sold in 

the United States contained an accused Genius lens.2 

And Largan did not present any evidence from the supply 

chain to establish what process the module integrators 

and system integrators used to select lenses in products 

destined for the United States. Largan presented no 

evidence of a single United States sale or evidence of 

randomness from the module integrators or system integrators. 

Largan also tries to prove United States sales with evidence that Genius does not actively prevent United 

States sales. It relies on testimony from Genius employees stating Genius has never instructed Apple not to sell 

its lenses in the United States. This too provides no 

insight into the behavior of the module integrators or 

system integrators. That Genius does not restrict where 

Apple sells its products does not indicate whether the 

system integrators ship Apple products with Genius 

lenses to the United States. 

 

2 Largan offers evidence that Genius was the sole 

supplier for certain Apple products during a specific 

period of time in an effort to overcome its failure of proof. 

See Appellant’s Br. at 39. However, as noted supra note 

1, the district court denied summary judgment with 

respect to these products. As such, Largan presented no 

evidence that any Apple product sold in the United States 

at issue in this appeal contained a Genius lens.
LARGAN PRECISION CO. v. GENIUS ELECTRONIC OPTICAL CO. 7

CONCLUSION

Largan has failed to present sufficient evidence to establish a prima facie showing of direct infringement by 

Apple. Because induced infringement requires proof of 

underlying direct infringement, no reasonable jury could 

find Genius liable for induced infringement.3 For the 

foregoing reasons, the judgment is affirmed. 

AFFIRMED

COSTS

No Costs.

 

3 Because we hold that no reasonable jury could 

find underlying direct infringement, we do not reach the 

issue of Genius’s alleged knowledge of or willful blindness 

to Apple’s alleged direct infringement.