home
about the group
appellate attorneys
briefs
docket reports
articles & treatises
oral arguments
news
appellate courts
search
contact
 
SUPREME COURT DOCKET REPORT
OCTOBER TERM 2010
DECISION ALERT


October Term, 2010

May 31, 2011

Today the Supreme Court issued one decision, described below, of interest to the business community.


Patent Act—Required State of Mind for a Claim of Inducement

Global-Tech Appliances, Inc. v. SEB S.A., No. 10-6 (previously discussed in the October 12, 2010 Docket Report).

Under Chapter 28 of the United States Patent Act, 35 U.S.C. § 271(b), “[w]hoever actively induces infringement of a patent shall be liable as an infringer.” Today, in Global-Tech Appliances, Inc. v. SEB S.A., No. 10-6, the Supreme Court held that to be held liable under § 271(b) the defendant must know that the induced acts constitute patent infringement and that willful blindness, but not mere deliberate indifference, satisfies § 271(b)’s knowledge requirement.

In Global-Tech Appliances, petitioners, the defendants below, bought one of respondent’s home-cooking devices from Hong Kong, copied many features from respondent’s appliance, and developed a similar device for sale in the United States. Because the exemplar that petitioners purchased and copied was bought abroad and not intended for the U.S. market, it lacked respondent’s U.S. patent markings. Petitioners did not inform their attorney that they had copied respondent’s device, and the attorney, having failed to locate respondent’s patent, issued an opinion letter stating that petitioners’ device did not infringe any patent that he had found. Petitioners then sold their device to others, who in turn resold the device to consumers. Respondent filed suit claiming, as relevant here, that petitioners were guilty of induced infringement under § 271(b).

A jury found in respondent’s favor, and on appeal, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed. Although there was no direct evidence that petitioners actually knew of respondent’s patent before respondent filed suit, the Federal Circuit found that petitioners “‘deliberately disregarded a known risk’” and that “[s]uch disregard” was “‘a form of actual knowledge’” sufficient to establish liability under § 271(b). Slip op. 3.

In an opinion by Justice Alito, the Supreme Court affirmed but on different grounds. According to the Court, § 271(b) “requires knowledge that the induced acts constitute patent infringement.” Slip op. 10. The Court held that the knowledge requirement is not satisfied by proof of deliberate indifference because a deliberate indifference standard “permits a finding of knowledge when there is merely a ‘known risk’ that the induced acts are infringing” and “does not require active efforts by an inducer to avoid knowing about the infringing nature of the activities.” Id. at 14. Rather, absent proof of actual knowledge, § 271(b) demands proof of willful blindness, which, the Court explained, requires proof of the defendant’s subjective belief that there is “a high probability” of infringement and evidence that the defendant took “deliberate actions to avoid learning of that fact.” Slip op. 13.  Although the lower court had applied the deliberate indifference standard rather than the stricter willful blindness standard, the Court affirmed judgment for the respondent, finding that the record evidence established the petitioners’ willful blindness.

In a dissenting opinion, Justice Kennedy took the position that § 271(b) requires actual knowledge, and that proof of willful blindness is therefore insufficient to establish liability.

Mayer Brown LLP filed an amicus brief in support of petitioners on behalf of the Business Software Alliance.


Mayer Brown's Supreme Court & Appellate practice distributes a Docket Report whenever the Supreme Court grants certiorari in a case of interest to the business community and distributes a Docket Report-Decision Alert whenever the Court decides such a case. We hope you find the Docket Reports and Decision Alerts useful, and welcome feedback on them (which should be addressed to Andrew Tauber, their general editor, at atauber@mayerbrown.com or +1 202 263 3324).

Feel free to forward this message to anyone who you believe might be interested in the Decision Alert.

Please visit us at www.appellate.net

Mayer Brown Supreme Court Docket Reports provide information and comments on legal issues and developments of interest to our clients and friends. They are not a comprehensive treatment of the subject matter covered and are not intended to provide legal advice. Readers should seek specific legal advice before taking any action with respect to the matters discussed.

 
 
© 2014. The Mayer Brown Practices. All rights reserved. --  Legal Notices | Attorney Advertising

Mayer Brown is a global legal services provider comprising legal practices that are separate entities (the “Mayer Brown Practices”). The Mayer Brown Practices are: Mayer Brown LLP and Mayer Brown Europe – Brussels LLP, both limited liability partnerships established in Illinois USA; Mayer Brown International LLP, a limited liability partnership incorporated in England and Wales (authorized and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority and registered in England and Wales number OC 303359); Mayer Brown, a SELAS established in France; Mayer Brown JSM, a Hong Kong partnership and its associated entities in Asia; and Tauil & Chequer Advogados, a Brazilian law partnership with which Mayer Brown is associated. “Mayer Brown” and the Mayer Brown logo are the trademarks of the Mayer Brown Practices in their respective jurisdictions.