The Federal Circuit is currently split on what the requisite intent for induced infringement should be: an intent to induce infringement or an intent to induce the acts that constitute infringement. I argue that the former is the correct standard, given the exceptional nature of this infringement provision. As a result, a good faith belief that there is no direct infringement would insulate the inducer from liability, although such a belief would only preclude pre-suit damages and not prospective relief, such as an injunction, in a manner similar to a laches defense.