Opinion concurring in the judgment filed by Circuit Judge SCHALL, in which Circuit Judge CLEVENGER joins.
Opinion concurring in the judgment filed by Circuit Judge LINN.
PER CURIAM.This appeal presents the question of whether the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984, Pub.L. No. 98-417, 98 Stat. 1585 (1984) (codified at 21 U.S.C. §§ 355 and 360cc and 35 U.S.C. §§ 156 and 271) (the “Hatch-Waxman Act”), allows an action for induced infringement based upon the filing of an Abbreviated New Drug Application (“ANDA”), in the following circumstances: (i) The patent at issue claims a method of using a specified drug for a particular purpose, but that use has not been approved by the Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) based upon a New *1324Drug Application (“NDA”); (ii) the ANDA applicant seeks approval for the production of a generic version of the drug for a use that is different from the method of use of the drug that is claimed in the patent; and (iii) the generic drug that is the subject of the ANDA is effective for the method of use that is claimed in the patent.
This question arises in the context of a suit by Allergan, Inc. and Allergan Sales, Inc. (“Allergan”) against Alcon Laboratories, Inc., Alcon Research, Ltd., and Alcon Universal, Ltd. (“Alcon”), and Bausch & Lomb, Incorporated (“B & L”) for infringement of United States Patent Nos. 6,194,415 (the “'415 Patent”) and 6,248,741 (the “'741 Patent”). The '415 patent claims a method of protecting the optic nerve through the administration of the drug brimonidine, while the '741 patent claims a method of neural protection through the administration of brimonidine. Brimonidine itself is not patented, and the FDA has not approved brimonidine for the uses claimed in the '415 and '741 patents. However, brimonidine is effective for those uses.1
Allergan initiated suit in the United States District Court for the Central District of California after Alcon and B & L submitted ANDAs to the FDA seeking approval for the production and sale of a generic version of brimonidine for the reduction of intraocular pressure, a use different from the uses for brimonidine claimed in the '415 and '741 patents. Al-lergan charged Alcon and B & L with induced infringement under the authority of 35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(2).2 In due course, Alcon and B & L filed motions for summary judgment of non-infringement, arguing that a claim of induced infringement is not cognizable under section 271(e)(2) where, as here, the ANDA is for a use of the drug that is different from the use of the drug that is claimed in the asserted patent. The district court agreed. Accordingly, it granted Alcon’s and B & L’s motions, dismissed Alcon’s and B & L’s non-infringement and invalidity counterclaims without prejudice, and certified the case pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b). Allergan, Inc. v. Alcon Labs., Inc., 200 F.Supp.2d 1219, 63 USPQ2d 1427 (C.D.Cal.2002); Allergan, Inc. v. Alcon Labs., Inc., No. SA CV 02-40 DOC (ANx) (C.D. Cal. Jun 4, 2002).
Prior to January 16, 2003, the question presented in this case represented an issue of first impression. On that day, however, a panel of this court decided Warner-Lambert Co. v. Apotex Corp., 316 F.3d 1348, 65 USPQ2d 1481 (Fed.Cir.2003). In Warner-Lambert, this court held that “it is not an act of infringement to submit an ANDA for approval to market a drug for a use when neither the drug nor the use is covered by an existing patent, and the patent at issue is for a use not approved under the NDA.” Warner-Lambert, 316 F.3d at 1354-55, 65 USPQ2d at 1484. Based upon Warner-Lambert, we affirm the district court’s decision that the action for induced infringement brought by Aller-gan is not cognizable under 35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(2).
*1325BACKGROUND
I. The Hatch-Waxman Act
We recently stated that, in the Hatch-Waxman Act, “Congress struck a balance between two competing policy interests: (1) inducing pioneering research and development of new drugs and (2) enabling competitors to bring low-cost, generic copies of those drugs to market.” Andrx Pharma., Inc. v. Biovail Corp., 276 F.8d 1868, 1371, 61 USPQ2d 1414, 1415 (Fed. Cir.2002). To accomplish the goals of the Act, Congress amended provisions of the patent statute and the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (“FDCA”).
Prior to the passage of the Act, all drug manufacturers, brand name and generic, had to perform controlled studies to demonstrate that a new drug would be safe and effective for its intended use.3 This requirement resulted in long delays between the time when a brand name drug manufacturer received a patent for a new drug and the drug reached the market. It also resulted in long delays between the time when the patent expired and generic drug manufacturers were able to market a generic version of the drug. The Hatch-Waxman Act sought to address this situation by providing brand name drug manufacturers with limited extensions of their patent terms in order to restore a portion of the market exclusivity lost through the lengthy process of drug development and FDA approval. At the same time, to counter this benefit to the brand name manufacturers, the Act provided generic drug manufacturers with a patent infringement exemption for experimentation in connection with an application for FDA approval of a generic drug. It also provided a shortened FDA approval process for generic drugs. H.R.Rep. No. 98-857, pt. 1, at 14-15 (1984), reprinted in 1984 U.S.C.C.A.N. 2647, 2647-48.
Before a drug manufacturer can market a new drug, it must obtain FDA approval. 21 U.S.C. § 355(a). The approval process requires the submission of a NDA, which is the result of extensive testing and which must include safety information, efficacy information, and composition data. 21 U.S.C. § 355(b). Pursuant to the Hatch-Waxman Act, the FDA, upon approval of a NDA, grants the applicant a five-year period of exclusive marketing for the approved drug, which can be extended by six months if the producer submits safety information relating to children. 21 U.S.C. §§ 355(c)(3)(D)(ii) and 355a(a)(l)(A)(i). This period of exclusivity was primarily designed by Congress to encourage the development and testing of unpatentable pharmaceuticals. H.R.Rep. No. 98-857, pt. 1, at 29 (1984), reprinted in 1984 U.S.C.C.A.N. 2647, 2647-48. The FDA approval process requires a NDA applicant to file with its NDA the following:
the patent number and the expiration date of any patent which claims the drug for which the applicant submitted the application or which claims a method of using such drug and with respect to which a claim of patent infringement could reasonably be asserted if a person not licensed by the owner engaged in the manufacture, use, or sale of the drug.
21 U.S.C. § 355(b)(1). The holder of an approved NDA must file the same information with respect to similar patents that are obtained after the NDA is approved. 21 U.S.C. § 355(c)(2). The FDA lists such patents in a book entitled “Approved Drug Products with Therapeutic Equivalence Evaluations.” The book is commonly re*1326ferred to as the “Orange Book.” Andrx, 276 F.3d at 1371, 61 USPQ2d at 1415.
To attain a balance between the interests of brand name pharmaceutical companies and generic drug manufacturers, Congress, as part of the Hatch-Waxman Act, legislated that a generic drug manufacturer may, without liability for infringement, use a drug claimed in a patent or a method of using a drug claimed in a patent in order to prepare an application for FDA approval of a generic drug. 35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(1). At the same time, Congress extended the ANDA process to post-1962 pioneer drugs to couple with the NDA process. A generic drug manufacturer may file an ANDA to obtain approval for a generic drug. 21 U.S.C. § 355(j). The ANDA must be for the same drug that has been approved by the FDA, or it must be for a drug that is the bioequivalent of a drug that has been approved by the FDA. 21 U.S.C. § 355©(2).
The ANDA process imposes a certification requirement with respect to patents covering the drug that has been approved by the FDA. A generic drug manufacturer must certify in its ANDA the following with respect to each patent “which claims the [drug previously approved by the FDA] or which claims a use for [that] drug for which the applicant is seeking approval ... and for which information is required to be filed” for listing in the Orange Book: (i) such patent information has not been filed; (ii) the approved drug’s patent has expired; (iii) the date the approved drug’s patent will expire; or (iv) the approved drug’s patent “is invalid or will not be infringed by the manufacture, use, or sale” of the generic drug for which the ANDA is being submitted (a “Paragraph IV certification”). 21 U.S.C. § 355(j)(2)(A)(vii); see Bayer AG v. Elan Pharm. Research Corp., 212 F.3d 1241, 1244, 54 USPQ2d 1711, 1712 (Fed.Cir.2000). If a method of using the approved drug is patented and is listed in the Orange Book, but the manufacturer is not seeking approval for the patented use, the manufacturer must state in the ANDA that the method of use patent does not claim the use for which the manufacturer is seeking approval. 21 U.S.C. § 355(j)(2)(A)(viii).
As suggested by the certification process, a generic drug manufacturer may file an ANDA before a patent expires and, in so doing, allege non-infringement and invalidity of the patent.4 The Hatch-Wax-man Act provides that, in that situation, the filing of the ANDA is an act of infringement. 35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(2)(A); Glaxo, Inc. v. Novopharm, Ltd., 110 F.3d 1562, 1568-69, 42 USPQ2d 1257, 1263 (Fed.Cir.1997). The exemption to infringement under section 271(e)(1) allows a generic drug manufacturer to take the steps needed to bring a generic drug to market without waiting until the patent expires. At the same time, by deeming the filing of an ANDA to be an act of infringement under section 271(e)(2), the Hatch-Waxman Act allows a brand name drug manufacturer to challenge the ANDA application and a generic drug manufacturer to challenge the validity and infringement of an asserted patent before the patent expires. Id.
A generic drug manufacturer who files an ANDA containing a Paragraph IV certification must notify the owner of the unexpired patent that is the subject of the certification. 21 U.S.C. § 355(j)(2)(B)(i) & (ii). The patent owner then has 45 days to file an action for infringement in district *1327court. 21 U.S.C. § 355Cj)(5)(B)(iii). If suit is filed, the court then determines whether the applicant will, if the application is approved, infringe the patent at issue. Glaxo, 110 F.3d at 1569, 42 USPQ2d at 1263. If the patent owner does not file suit within the required time period, the ANDA may be approved immediately, subject to applicable FDA regulations. 21 U.S.C. § 355(j)(5)(B)(iii). If the patent owner files an infringement action, the ANDA may not be approved until the date the court determines invalidity or non-infringement, the date the patent expires, or 30 months from the date the patent holder receives notice of the ANDA Paragraph IV certification (subject to judicial discretion), whichever occurs first. Id.
II. The '415 and '741 Patents
This case arises out of Alcon’s and B & L’s efforts to market a generic version of Allergan’s medication, Alphagan. Alpha-gan is used in the treatment of open-angle glaucoma, a disease of the eye that results in the deterioration of vision. Open-angle glaucoma is caused by damage to the optical cells, but it is unknown exactly how this damage occurs. For years, the accepted belief of the medical profession was that the disease was caused by exceptionally high intraocular pressure (“IOP”), resulting from a failure of the eye fluid, called aqueous humor, to properly drain. The high pressure in the eye presumably bore down on the optic nerve, thereby damaging it. Drug manufacturers sought pharmaceutical components that reduced IOP in the eye in order to treat glaucoma.
On September 6, 1996, Allergan obtained approval of its NDA for the drug, brimonidine, the chemical compound in Al-phagan, for reducing IOP. As a result, Allergan received a five-year period of market exclusivity for brimonidine plus a six-month extension for researching the health effects and safety of the drug in children. This exclusive term expired on March 6, 2002. Brimonidine is not protected by a patent and is therefore in the public domain.
More recently, scientists have discovered that open-angle glaucoma also occurs in patients with low IOP. They therefore conjecture that it may be a neurodegenerativo disease of the optic nerve. Upon further investigation, Allergan’s scientists discovered that brimonidine helps prevent neuro-degeneration. This discovery led Allergan to file for the '415 and '741 patents, each of which is a method of use patent. The '415 and '741 patents do not claim the use of brimonidine for reducing IOP. That use, like the drug itself, is unpatented and in the public domain.
The '415 and the '741 patents claim methods of using brimonidine for treating ocular neural injuries, such as open-angle glaucoma. The '415 patent claims “[a] method of protecting the optic nerve and retina of a mammal comprising administering to said mammal suffering from or at risk of suffering a noxious action on said nerve cells an effective amount of [brimon-idine] to inhibit or prevent nerve cell injury or death .... ” '415 patent, col. 17, 11. 35-39, col. 18, 11. 1-25. The first dependent claim defines the noxious action as “glaucomatous optic neuropathy.” '415 patent, col. 18, 31. 26-27. The '741 patent claims “[a] method of providing neural protection to a mammal comprising administering to said mammal suffering from or at risk of suffering a noxious action on its nerve cells an effective amount of [brimon-idine] to inhibit or prevent nerve cell injury or death ...'741 patent, col. 17, 11. 27-39, col. 18,11. 1-8. The first dependent claim defines the noxious action as being “a result of a crushed or compressed nerve.” ’ '741 patent, col. 18, 11. 10-11. Both the '415 patent and the '741 patent are continuations-in-part of application number 08/496,262, now United States Pat*1328ent No. 5,856,329 (the “'329 patent”). The '415 and '741 patents carry terminal disclaimers to the '329 patent. The '329 patent was filed on June 28, 1995. Therefore, due to the terminal disclaimers, all three patents expire on June 28, 2015. After the '415 and '741 patents issued in 2001, Allergan submitted information relating to the patents to the FDA so that they could be listed in the Orange Book.
III. Alcon’s and B & L’s ANDAs and Allergan’s Lawsuit
In October of 2001, Alcon filed an ANDA for brimonidine, and in November of 2001, B & L filed one as well. In their ANDAs, Alcon and B & L stated that they were seeking approval from the FDA to produce and sell a generic version of bri-monidine for use in lowering IOP in patients with open-angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension. Neither Alcon nor B & L sought FDA approval for the methods of using brimonidine claimed in the '415 and '741 patents. As part of their respective ANDAs, Alcon and B & L filed Paragraph IV certifications, based on Allergan’s Orange Book listings, indicating that Aller-gan’s '415 and '741 patents were not infringed and that, to the extent Allergan asserted that the patents covered IOP lowering, they were invalid. After Alcon and B & L gave Allergan notice of the filing of their ANDAs for brimonidine, Allergan instituted suit against both companies in the United States District Court for the Central District of California within the 45 day time period set forth in 21 U.S.C. § 355(j)(5)(B)(iii). Allergan brought its suit under 35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(2), alleging that if the FDA approved Alcon’s and B & L’s ANDAs, Alcon and B & L would induce doctors to infringe the '415 and '741 patents by prescribing brimonidine for neuroprotection and would induce patients to infringe by using brimonidine for neuro-protection. Allergan also alleged that, through the submission of their ANDAs, Alcon and B & L were liable for infringement because they violated 35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(2) directly.
As noted above, Alcon and B & L moved for summary judgment of non-infringement, arguing that a claim of induced infringement is not cognizable under section 271(e)(2) where, as here, the ANDA is for a use of the drug that is different from the use of the drug that is claimed in the asserted patent. In ruling on the motions, the district court noted that, as far as Alcon was concerned, Allergan had presented sufficient evidence to present a triable issue of fact with regard to induced infringement, or had at least presented sufficient evidence to proceed to discovery.5 Allergan, 200 F.Supp.2d at 1225, 63 USPQ2d at 1431. The district court did not make a similar finding with respect to B & L. The district court, nevertheless, granted Alcon’s and B & L’s motions. Addressing Allergan’s claim of induced infringement, the court held that the filing of an ANDA does not provide a predicate for a method of use patent holder to sue an ANDA applicant for induced infringement. Id. at 1232, 63 USPQ2d at 1437. The court viewed section 271(e)(2) as being symmetrical with section 271(e)(1), which, as noted above, allows a generic drug man-*1329ufaeturer to use a patented drug in order to prepare an application for FDA approval without liability for infringement. The court therefore reasoned that the type of claims that accrue upon the filing of an ANDA are limited to those claims that a patent holder could have brought in the absence of section 271(e)(1). The court stated that, had section 271(e)(1) not been enacted, Allergan could have sued Alcon for infringement for using its patent in the development of a generic drug. “It could not, however, sue Alcon for inducing infringement because there was yet to be any third-party infringement and thus the question of inducing infringement would be entirely too speculative.” Id. at 1231, 63 USPQ2d at 1436. Under these circumstances, the district court concluded, “allowing a patentee to bring a claim for inducing infringement under [sjection 271(e)(2) runs afoul of the ‘case or controversy’ requirement of Article III [of the Constitution].” Id. at 1232, 63 USPQ2d at 1437. The district court rejected Aller-gan’s direct cause of action claim on the ground that section 271(e)(2) does not expand the traditional grounds of patent infringement; it requires the same inquiry as any other infringement suit. Id. at 1227, 63 USPQ2d at 1433.
Allergan now appeals the district court’s grant of Alcon’s and B & L’s motions for summary judgment. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(1).
DISCUSSION
I. Standard of Review
We review a grant of summary judgment by a district court de novo. Cortland Line Co. v. Orvis Co., 203 F.3d 1351, 1355-56, 53 USPQ2d 1734, 1736 (Fed.Cir. 2000). Summary judgment is appropriate where the record shows “that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. R. 56(c); Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 247, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986). We review a district court’s interpretation of statutory language, which is a question of law, without deference. Waymark Corp. v. Porta Sys. Corp., 245 F.3d 1364, 1366, 58 USPQ2d 1456, 1458 (Fed.Cir.2001). In this case, the issue before us is a question of law: whether the district court erred in holding that the Hatch-Waxman Act does not support Allergan’s claim of induced infringement against Alcon and B & L.
II. Contentions of the Parties
On appeal, Allergan argues that the district court erred in construing 35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(2) so as to bar suits for induced infringement. Allergan contends that Congress enacted section 271(e)(2) to complement the filing of an ANDA, not to counterbalance 35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(1). Allergan further argues that, pursuant to section 271(e)(2), it may bring a suit for induced infringement of the '451 and '741 patents, even though Alcon’s and B & L’s ANDAs do not seek approval for the methods of using brimonidine claimed in those patents. In the alternative, Allergan urges that section 271(e)(2) provides a direct cause of action that makes Alcon and B & L liable for direct infringement based upon the filing of their ANDAs.
Alcon responds that the district court properly granted summary judgment against Allergan. Alcon argues that Aller-gan’s suit cannot succeed for two reasons. First, according to Alcon, section 271(e)(2) only provides jurisdiction for an action for infringement of a method of use patent when the patent at issue claims an FDA-approved use and the ANDA applicant is seeking approval for that use. Second, Alcon asserts that, under section 271(e)(2), the conventional requirements for infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a), (b), and (c) *1330apply and that, in this case, there is no direct infringement by a third party and no evidence that Alcon has or will actively promote its generic drug for an infringing use. B & L joins in Alcon’s arguments. In addition, it contends that Allergan has not shown any triable issue of fact with respect to its claim of induced infringement against B & L.6
For the reasons that follow, we hold that Warner-Lambert Co. v. Apotex Corp., 316 F.3d 1348, 65 USPQ2d 1481 (Fed.Cir.2003), controls this case and that, under Warner-Lambert, Allergan may not sue Alcon and B & L, under section 271(e)(2) for inducing infringement of the '415 and '741 patents. We therefore affirm the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Alcon and B & L.
III. Whether 35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(2) is a Jurisdictional Statute
The district court stated that “[sjection 271(e)(2) ... provides no new substantive law, but much like the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201, merely provides a jurisdictional ‘hook’ for a patent case.” Allergan, 200 F.Supp.2d at 1227, 63 USPQ2d at 1433. On appeal, Alcon and B & L argue that section 271(e)(2) did not provide the district court with jurisdiction over Allergan’s action because Allergan did not assert infringement of a method of use patent that claims an FDA-approved use for which Alcon and B & L are seeking FDA approval. Under these circumstances, we think it appropriate to address at the outset whether section 271(e)(2) is a jurisdictional statute.
Section 271(e)(2) is not a jurisdictional statute in the strict sense of the word. As the Supreme Court pointed out in Eli Lilly Co. v. Medtronic, Inc., section 271(e)(2) creates an “act of infringement” based upon the filing of an ANDA. 496 U.S. 661, 678, 110 S.Ct. 2683, 110 L.Ed.2d 605, 15 USPQ2d 1121, 1130 (1990). We explained in Glaxo that section 271(e)(2) “providefs] patentees with a defined act of infringement sufficient to create case or controversy jurisdiction to enable a court to promptly resolve any dispute concerning infringement and validity.” Glaxo, 110 F.3d at 1569, 42 USPQ2d at 1263. Once Congress creates an act of infringement, jurisdiction in the district court is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1338(a). Section 1338(a) states that “[t]he district courts shall have original jurisdiction of any civil action arising under any Act of Congress relating to patents.... ” Section 271(e)(2) is an Act of Congress relating to patents. Therefore, section 1338(a) provides for jurisdiction in the district court for Allergan’s suit.
In short, section 271(e)(2) makes it possible for the district court to exercise its section 1338(a) jurisdiction in the situation in which an ANDA has been filed. The critical question, and the one to which we now turn, is whether Allergan’s claim of induced infringement against Alcon and B & L is cognizable under section 271(e)(2).
IV. Whether Allergan’s Claim of Induced Infringement May be Brought Under 35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(2)
A. Claims of Induced Infringement Under Section 271(e)(2) Generally
Preliminarily, we must determine whether, as a general matter, section 271(e)(2) may serve as an umbrella for a claim of induced infringement for a meth*1331od of use patent. As noted above, the district court concluded that it could not. The district court reasoned that the type of claims that accrue upon the filing of an ANDA are limited to those claims that a patent holder could have brought in the absence of section 271(e)(1), such as an infringement claim against a generic drug manufacturer for using the patent in the development of a generic drug. The district court determined that a claim of induced infringement, based upon conduct of a third party that would occur upon approval of an ANDA, was not a claim that a patent holder could have brought before the enactment of section 271(e)(1). Allergan, 200 F.Supp.2d at 1231, 63 USPQ2d at 1436. The district court concluded that “[s]ection 271(e)(2) ... does not provide a predicate for Allergan to sue for inducing infringement.” Id. at 1230, 63 USPQ2d at 1435.
We do not share the district court’s view of 35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(2). To begin with, the language of section 271(e)(2) does not limit the reach of the statute to direct infringement actions to the exclusion of actions for induced infringement. Additionally, in Glaxo, we did not limit the scope of section 271(e)(2) to direct infringement actions. Instead, we stated that a court must employ a traditional infringement analysis, focusing on all of the elements of infringement. Glaxo, 110 F.3d at 1567, 42 USPQ2d at 1262 (“The plain language of the statute does not alter a patentee’s burden of proving infringement....”). The only difference in the analysis of a traditional infringement claim and a claim of infringement under section 271(e)(2) is the timeframe under which the elements of infringement are considered. Id. at 1569, 42 USPQ2d at 1263 (“[T]he question of infringement must focus on what the ANDA applicant will likely market if its application is approved.... ”). Glaxo does not preclude patentees from asserting claims for induced infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(2). In fact, a patent holder asserting infringement of a patent that claims a FDA-approved method of use for which an ANDA seeks approval will, in many instances, have to prove induced infringement. Therefore, section 271(e)(2) may support an action for induced infringement.
Finally, we do not agree with the district court that the “case or controversy” requirement of Article III of the Constitution precludes a patentee from bringing a claim of induced infringement under section 271(e)(2). The district court was of the view that, in the case of a claim of induced infringement predicated on direct infringement by third party physicians, there is “not a .sufficiently immediate threat that there will be a violation of the patent laws so as to warrant judicial determination.” Allergan, 200 F.Supp.2d at 1232, 63 USPQ2d at 1437.
The case or controversy clause in Article III of the Constitution requires injury in fact, connection between the challenged conduct and the injury, and redressability of the injury by the requested remedy. Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env’t, 523 U.S. 83, 103-04, 118 S.Ct. 1003, 140 L.Ed.2d 210 (1998) (“This triad of injury in fact, causation, and redressability comprises the core of Article Ill’s case-or-controversy requirement....”). A claim under 35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(2) is, by its very nature, speculative to a certain degree, as acknowledged in Glaxo. See Glaxo, 110 F.3d at 1569, 42 USPQ2d at 1263 (“The only difference in actions brought under § 271(e)(2) [from actions brought under section 271(a) ] is that the allegedly infringing drug has not yet been marketed and therefore the question of infringement must focus on what the ANDA applicant will likely market if its application is approved, an act that has not yet occurred.”). While a section 271(e)(2) induced infringe*1332ment claim may be speculative, it is not sufficiently so to contravene the case or controversy requirement. In Glaxo, we stated that section “271(e)(2) provided pat-entees with a defined act of infringement sufficient to create case or controversy jurisdiction to enable a court to promptly resolve any dispute concerning infringement and validity.” Glaxo, 110 F.3d at 1569, 42 USPQ2d at 1263. Additionally, in the setting of a declaratory judgment action, we have held that Article III does not preclude an action by a potential defendant for a determination that its conduct does not induce infringement, prior to any acts of infringement having taken place. See Fina Research, S.A. v. Baroid Ltd., 141 F.3d 1479, 1485, 46 USPQ2d 1461, 1467 (Fed.Cir.1998) (“[W]e decline ... to create a per se rule that an actual controversy predicated only on induced infringement may exist only if direct infringement has already occurred.”). Thus, under Fina, a method of use patent holder could potentially bring an action against a generic drug manufacturer for induced infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b) on the day the ANDA was approved before a single prescription of the generic drug was written by third party physicians. Id. A claim of induced infringement under section 271(e)(2), filed prior to the occurrence of direct infringement, does not violate the case or controversy requirement of Article III.
Summary judgment of non-infringement under section 271(e)(2), therefore, is inappropriate where the plaintiff can demonstrate the existence of a genuine issue of material fact with respect to the claim that the ANDA filer will induce infringement of its patent upon approval of the ANDA. Warner-Lambert, 316 F.3d at 1356, 65 USPQ2d at 1485. The district court found that Allergan presented a triable issue of fact with respect to induced infringement by Alcon sufficient to allow the parties to proceed to discovery. See supra note 5; Allergan, 200 F.Supp.2d at 1225, 63 USPQ2d at 1431. Allergan presented evidence that third-party doctors and patients will likely infringe its two method of use patents and that Alcon and B & L may knowingly induce this infringement through their actions. See Manville Sales Corp. v. Paramount Sys., Inc., 917 F.2d 544, 553, 16 USPQ2d 1587, 1594 (Fed.Cir.1990) (“The plaintiff has the burden of showing that the alleged infringer’s actions induced infringing acts and that he knew or should have known his actions would induce actual infringements.”) (emphasis in original).
We must now determine whether Congress has prohibited the particular action for induced infringement brought by Aller-gan.
B. Allergan’s Action for Induced Infringement
The district court concluded that, in the case of a method of use patent, section 271(e)(2) only makes the filing of an ANDA an act of infringement when the patent at issue claims the use for which FDA approval is sought in the ANDA. Allergan, 200 F.Supp.2d at 1230, 63 USPQ2d at 1435. Allergan argues that the district court erred in its ruling. For their part, Alcon and B & L contend that the district court correctly held that only when the ANDA speaks to the use that is claimed in the patent at issue may the patent holder bring suit under section 271(e)(2).
This issue was decided in Warner-Lambert. Warner-Lambert held that, pursuant to section 271(e)(2), a method of use patent holder may not sue an ANDA applicant for induced infringement of its patent, if the ANDA applicant is not seeking FDA approval for the use claimed in the patent and if the use claimed in the patent is not FDA-approved. Warner-*1333Lambert, 316 F.3d at 1354-55, 65 USPQ2d at 1484. Warner-Lambert reasoned that “because an ANDA may not seek approval for an unapproved or off-label use of a drug under 21 U.S.C. § 355(j)(2)(A)(i), it necessarily follows that 35 U.S.C. 271(e)(2)(A) does not apply to a use patent claiming only such a use.” Id. at 1356, 65 USPQ2d at 1485.
In the Warner-Lambert case, Warner-Lambert obtained FDA approval through a NDA to market 1-aminomethyl-l-cyclo-hexane acetic acid (“gabapentin”) for use in “adjunctive therapy in the treatment of partial seizures with and without secondary generalization in adults with epilepsy.” This method of use was claimed in United States Patent No. 4,087,544 (the “epilepsy method patent”). Warner-Lambert is also the assignee of a second method of use patent, United States Patent No. 5,084,479 (the “neurodegenerative method patent”), which covers the treatment of neurodegen-erative diseases with gabapentin.7 Warner-Lambert claimed gabapentin itself in United States Patent No. 4,024,175 (the “product patent”).
On April 17, 1998, Apotex filed an ANDA seeking approval to market a generic formulation of gabapentin upon the expiration of Warner-Lambert’s epilepsy method patent on January 16, 2000. After Apotex notified Warner-Lambert that it had filed the ANDA and a Paragraph IV certification, Warner-Lambert instituted suit within 45 days in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. Warner-Lambert alleged that Apotex’s submission of an ANDA for gaba-pentin was an act of infringement of its neurodegenerative method patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(2).8 The district court held that Warner-Lambert was entitled to proceed on an induced infringement theory under 35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(2) and that it was irrelevant whether the asserted method of use patent claimed the use covered by Apotex’s ANDA. The court concluded that “[t]he proper inquiry for this Court on the present motion is whether there exists a genuine issue of any material fact as to whether Apotex’s gabapentin product, if manufactured, used, or sold, would actively induce the infringement of the '479 patent.” Warner-Lambert Co. v. Apotex Corp., 1999 WL 259946, at *3, 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6208, *10 (N.D.Ill. Apr. 8, 1999). After discovery, the district court entertained motions for summary judgment and concluded that there was no evidence that Apotex actively induced physicians to prescribe its product for neuro-degenerative diseases or that Apotex knew its product would be prescribed for neuro-degenerative diseases. Warner-Lambert Co. v. Apotex Corp., 2001 WL 1104618, at *3, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14592, *8 (N.D.Ill. Sept. 14, 2001). The district court therefore granted Apotex’s motion for summary judgment of non-infringement. Id. at *4, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14592, at *14. Warner-Lambert’s appeal to this court followed.
On appeal, the Warner-Lambert court expressed concern that permitting a cause of action under section 271(e)(2) for off-label method of use patents would “confer substantial additional rights on pioneer drug patent owners that Congress quite clearly did not intend to confer.” Warner-Lambert, 316 F.3d at 1359, 65 USPQ2d at 1487. The court also expressed concern about the threat of abuse by a patent holder attempting to extend its patent exclusion. Id. Accordingly, the court held *1334that a method of use patent holder may not bring an action under section 271(e)(2) for infringement of a method of use patent that does not claim a FDA-approved use.
The court also determined that “Warner-Lambert would have needed to demonstrate the existence of a genuine issue of material fact to support a traditional infringement claim, ie., that Apotex induced or will induce infringement of the neurode-generative method patent.” Id. at 1356, 65 USPQ2d at 1485. Upon considering Warner-Lambert’s cause of action under section 271(b), the court concluded that “[i]n the absence of any evidence that Apotex has or will promote or encourage doctors to infringe the neurodegenerative method patent, there has been raised no genuine issue of material fact.” Id. at 1364, 65 USPQ2d at 1491. The court, therefore, affirmed the district court’s dismissal of Warner-Lambert’s suit.
Under Warner-Lambert, Allergan is precluded from suing Alcon and B & L under section 271(e)(2) for inducing infringement of the '415 and '741 patents, because Alcon and B & L are not seeking FDA approval for the uses claimed in the patents and because the uses claimed in the patents are not FDA-approved.9
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the decision of the district court granting summary judgment in favor of Alcon and B & L is affirmed.
COSTS
Each party shall bear its own costs.
AFFIRMED.
. The FDA does not prohibit doctors from prescribing a drug for an unapproved or off-label use, and it does not prohibit patients from using a drug for an unapproved or off-label use. See Warner-Lambert Co. v. Apotex Corp., 316 F.3d 1348, 1356, 65 USPQ2d 1481, 1485 (Fed.Cir.2003) (stating that "a physician may prescribe an approved drug for any use consistent with acceptable medical practices....”). Additionally, several states require doctors to prescribe a generic version of a drug, if available, for all approved and unapproved uses for which the drug is prescribed. See, e.g., N.Y. Educ. Law § 6810(6)(a) (2002).
. All references are to statutes set forth in the 2000 version of the United States Code.
. The FDA previously allowed ANDAs for pioneer drugs approved prior to 1962. H.R.Rep. No, 98-857, pt. 1, at 16 (1984), reprinted in 1984 U.S.C.C.A.N. 2647, 2647-48.
. A generic drug manufacturer may also file an ANDA after the corresponding NDA holder’s fourth year of FDA granted market exclusivity ends, if the ANDA contains a Paragraph IV certification under 21 U.S.C. § 355(j)(2)(A)(vii). 21 U.S.C. § 355(j)(5)(D)(ii).
. Responding to the summary judgment motions, Allergan presented evidence in the form of research papers, patents, and articles suggesting that the neuroprotective functions of brimonidine are well known in the medical field and that doctors are currently prescribing brimonidine for neuroprotective purposes. In addition, Allergan submitted evidence of instances where Alcon allegedly advertised an ANDA approved drug for uses other than those uses approved by the FDA. Finally, Al-lergan presented evidence indicating that Alcon and B & L have included articles on their websites that discuss brimonidine's neu-roprotective properties.
. The Washington Legal Foundation ("WLF”) submitted an amicus curiae brief. WLF argues that the district court erred in.ruling that Allergan’s induced infringement claim does not present a case or controversy as required by Article III. WLF also argues that the plain language of section 271(e)(2) supports Aller-gan’s contention that section 271(e)(2) allows its claim of induced infringement.
. Epilepsy is not a neurodegenerative disease; therefore, the neurodegenerative method patent does not implicate the use of gabapentin for epilepsy.
. The gabapentin patent expired prior to Warner-Lambert’s suit.
. Allergan's alternative argument is that section 271(e)(2) provides a direct cause of action that makes an ANDA filer in a case such as this liable for infringement based simply upon the filing of the ANDA. According to Allergan, ”[o]n its face, § 271(e)(2)(A) requires that, if a person submits an ANDA for a drug, the use of which is claimed in a patent, in order to engage in the commercial manufacture, use, or sale of the drug, that person has committed an act of infringement.” Warner-Lambert bars Allergan's direct infringement claim. In any event, Glaxo makes it clear that section 271(e)(2) requires proof of all the elements of infringement. Glaxo, 110 F.3d at 1567, 42 USPQ2d at 1262 ("The plain language of the statute does not alter a paten-tee's burden of proving infringement....”). We reject Allergan's contention that section 271(e)(2) acts as a strict liability statute.