direct infringement

USAGE SUMMARY

The phrase "direct infringement" is correct and usable in written English.
It is typically used in legal contexts to refer to the unauthorized use of a patented invention or copyrighted work. Example: "The company was sued for direct infringement of the patent held by its competitor."

✓ Grammatically correct

Academia

News & Media

Wiki

Human-verified examples from authoritative sources

Exact Expressions

60 human-written examples

The jury instructions stated that "[o]ne infringes contributorily by intentionally inducing or encouraging direct infringement" and that such intent could be found if Cox "knew or should have known of such infringing activity". Looking to the Global-Tech rule employed in patent cases, Motz reasoned that negligence was not sufficient to create contributory liability.

Harvard University

Knowledge Contributory liability requires that the secondary infringer "know or have reason to know" of direct infringement.

The New York Times

Infringement Plaintiffs must satisfy two requirements to present a prima facie case of direct infringement: (1) they must show ownership of the allegedly infringed material and (2) they must demonstrate that the alleged infringers violate at least one exclusive right granted to copyright holders under Title 17 United States Code, Section 106.

The New York Times

The district court also concluded that the law does not require knowledge of "specific acts of infringement" and rejected Napster's contention that because the company cannot distinguish infringing from noninfringing files, it does not "know" of the direct infringement...

The New York Times

Bottom line: as long as your user base or some third party server/website service is infringing and not your company, you should be covered under the direct infringement category.

WikiHow

It is hard to imagine a more direct infringement on the free-speech rights of candidates.

The New York Times

And by doing that, it constitutes, the uses constitute direct infringement of plaintiffs' musical compositions, recordings".

The New York Times

These new chips may therefore constitute a direct infringement of personal privacy.

The Economist

Vicarious and contributory liability must be predicated on some direct infringement by the third party.

Harvard University

Nintendo emphasizes that the district court ultimately addressed its direct infringement by authorization argument.

Harvard University

Thus there must be a claim of direct infringement by the copyshop.

Stanford University

Expert writing Tips

Best practice

When discussing copyright or patent law, use "direct infringement" to clearly indicate that the infringement was committed by the primary actor, distinguishing it from contributory or induced infringement.

Common error

Avoid using "direct infringement" when you mean to describe actions that enable or encourage infringement by others; these are typically classified as contributory or induced infringement, and require different legal considerations.

Linguistic Context

The phrase "direct infringement" functions as a noun phrase, typically serving as the subject or object of a sentence, especially in legal contexts. Ludwig confirms its usability and relevance, identifying it as a key term in discussions of intellectual property law.

Expression frequency: Very common

Frequent in

Academia

35%

News & Media

30%

Wiki

20%

Less common in

Formal & Business

10%

Science

5%

Encyclopedias

0%

Ludwig's WRAP-UP

The phrase "direct infringement" is a well-established legal term used to describe the unauthorized and direct violation of copyright or patent laws. As Ludwig confirms, this term is grammatically correct and very common in academic, news, and legal contexts. It's crucial to differentiate it from related concepts like contributory or induced infringement. Understanding its precise meaning helps ensure clarity in legal discussions. When writing, remember to reserve this term for instances where the infringing act is committed directly by the primary party. High-quality sources consistently use "direct infringement" in this manner, underlining its importance in the lexicon of law.

More alternative expressions

Phrases that express similar concepts, ordered by semantic similarity:

outright violation

Emphasizes the blatant and unambiguous nature of the infringement.

blatant transgression

Highlights the open and defiant character of the act of infringement.

explicit breach

Focuses on the clear and unambiguous violation of a specific rule or law.

immediate violation

Implies that the violation occurred without delay or mediation.

patent violation

Specifically refers to the infringement of a patent.

copyright abuse

Suggests misuse or exploitation of copyrighted material.

unlicensed use

Focuses on the absence of permission or authorization for the use of copyrighted material.

illegal duplication

Highlights the unauthorized copying of protected content.

unlawful reproduction

Stresses the illegal nature of reproducing copyrighted works.

unauthorized exploitation

Emphasizes the lack of permission to use the copyrighted content for commercial gain.

FAQs

What exactly constitutes "direct infringement"?

"Direct infringement" refers to the act of violating a copyright or patent by the primary infringer themselves, as opposed to someone who enables or induces the infringement.

What is the difference between "direct infringement" and contributory infringement?

"Direct infringement" is the act of directly violating a copyright or patent. Contributory infringement involves knowingly assisting or contributing to the infringing acts of another.

When should I use the term "direct infringement" in legal writing?

Use "direct infringement" when you need to specifically identify the primary actor who is violating copyright or patent law, distinguishing them from those who might be secondarily liable.

Are there alternatives to the term "direct infringement"?

While "direct infringement" is the standard legal term, you could use phrases like "outright violation" or "explicit breach" in more general contexts, although these may not carry the same legal weight.