in direct infringement

USAGE SUMMARY

The phrase "in direct infringement" is correct and usable in written English.
It is typically used in legal contexts to refer to a situation where someone is directly violating a law or a right, particularly in intellectual property cases. Example: "The company was found to be in direct infringement of the patent held by the competitor."

✓ Grammatically correct

Wiki

News & Media

Science

Human-verified examples from authoritative sources

Exact Expressions

2 human-written examples

Suggestions: Do not encourage others to join your service for the purpose of participating in direct infringement of copyrighted material.

WikiHow

The "inducement to infringe" provision involves the situation where a company knowingly took steps that are substantially certain to result in direct infringement.

WikiHow

Human-verified similar examples from authoritative sources

Similar Expressions

58 human-written examples

Liability can extend beyond to individuals or companies who were not involved in the direct infringement of another's copyrighted work.

WikiHow

Secondary liability for copyright infringement does not exist in the absence of direct infringement by a third party.

The New York Times

It follows that Napster does not facilitate infringement of the copyright laws in the absence of direct infringement by its users.

The New York Times

Courts also stated that this provision also applies to what is not done in the face of direct infringement.

WikiHow

For example, individuals or companies may be held liable if they engage in conduct that encourages or assist the direct infringement of others, or in other words they are found to contribute to this infringing activity.

WikiHow

"NATO enlargement symbolizes the formation of a security system in Europe in which Russia is not an equal party and it is a direct infringement on Russia's vital interests," he said in Brussels after meeting with NATO officials.

The New York Times

Akamai sued for infringement, and in 2012 the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled that Limelight was not liable for direct infringement because it hadn't performed every step in the process.

Science Magazine

In the UK, the idea is seen as a direct infringement on its sovereignty.

Vice

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

The New York Times

Expert writing Tips

Best practice

When discussing legal matters, especially concerning intellectual property, use "in direct infringement" to clearly indicate a direct violation of copyright or patent laws. This phrase is most effective when you want to emphasize the act of directly violating a legal right.

Common error

Avoid using "in direct infringement" when the infringement is actually indirect or contributory. Direct infringement involves a direct violation, while indirect infringement involves enabling or assisting another party's direct infringement. Using the wrong term can misrepresent the legal situation.

Linguistic Context

The phrase "in direct infringement" functions as a prepositional phrase that modifies a noun or verb, indicating the manner in which an action violates a right. It commonly appears in legal contexts to define the nature of the infringement. As Ludwig AI indicates, this phrase follows standard grammar rules and is usable in written English.

Expression frequency: Rare

Frequent in

Wiki

33%

News & Media

33%

Science

34%

Less common in

Formal & Business

0%

Academia

0%

Encyclopedias

0%

Ludwig's WRAP-UP

In summary, the phrase "in direct infringement" is a prepositional phrase used to describe a specific type of legal violation, particularly in the context of copyright and patent laws. Ludwig AI confirms its grammatical correctness and usability. It is most commonly found in legal, technical, and formal contexts. While examples are limited, the phrase is clear in its meaning, denoting a clear, immediate, and personal violation of a legal right. When using this phrase, it's important to differentiate between direct and indirect infringement to ensure accuracy in legal discussions. Related phrases include alternatives like "constituting direct infringement" or "in clear violation of copyright".

More alternative expressions

Phrases that express similar concepts, ordered by semantic similarity:

constituting direct infringement

Focuses on the action being the infringement itself, rather than the state of being "in" it.

in clear violation of copyright

Replaces 'infringement' with 'violation', emphasizing the breach of copyright law.

directly infringing upon

Uses a verb phrase to highlight the action of infringement.

in immediate violation

Emphasizes the immediacy of the infringement.

in blatant disregard of copyright

Highlights the open and obvious nature of the infringement.

involved in direct copyright violation

Specifies the type of infringement and uses 'involved' to indicate participation.

directly violating the rights

Focuses on the violation of specific rights.

engaging in direct infringement activities

Replaces the prepositional phrase with a verb phrase indicating active involvement.

in contravention of intellectual property law

Uses more formal legal language to describe the violation.

committing direct copyright violation

Uses 'committing' to strongly emphasize the action of infringement.

FAQs

How is "in direct infringement" typically used in a sentence?

It's generally used to describe an action or state where someone is actively and immediately violating a copyright, patent, or other intellectual property right. For example, "The unauthorized reproduction of the software was considered "in direct infringement" of the original copyright."

What are some alternatives to saying "in direct infringement"?

You can use alternatives like "constituting direct infringement", "in clear violation of copyright", or "directly infringing upon depending on the context".

What is the difference between direct and indirect infringement?

Direct infringement occurs when someone personally violates a copyright, while indirect infringement happens when someone facilitates or induces someone else's direct infringement. Therefore, the liability for "indirect infringement" is secondary to an act of direct infringement.

In what situations is it most appropriate to use the phrase "in direct infringement"?

This phrase is most appropriate when discussing legal proceedings, intellectual property rights, or situations involving clear violations of copyright or patent laws. It's often used in formal and legal documentation.