Infringement is the unauthorized copying of patented subject matter. Infringement can be either direct or indirect (e.g., induced or contributory), and the issue becomes complicated when the patented subject matter relates to methods. To illustrate, consider the fictional J.P. Jones, PhD, who has developed a burgeoning business in the bioinformatics field by dividing the practice of patented methods amongst several actors. Dr. Jones encouraged medical practitioners to augment their diagnostic resources by utilizing his for-profit laboratory to perform specific DNA analyses. The diagnostic methods collectively being followed by the clinicians and the independent laboratory were patented by another company, but in dividing performance of the method steps among the clinicians and the lab, Dr. Jones was able to ignore the patent rights by exploiting what has often been perceived as a loophole in US patent law. Under these circumstances, the patented protocols were not directly infringed. Consequently, Dr. Jones could not be held liable for inducing patent infringement. However, a September 2012 Appellate Court decision has changed things for Dr. Jones and his contract research organization (CRO.