Insights
Publications

Court Establishes Willful Blindness Standard for Induced Patent Infringement

6/2/2011 Articles

On May 31, 2011, the United States Supreme Court ruled in Global-Tech v. SEB on the requisite level of knowledge that must be established to prove a claim for active inducement under patent law.  Farella recently hosted a discussion on this topic, and we thought this would be a good follow-up for those who attended or are otherwise interested. 

Active inducement is a critical intellectual property issue for businesses today.  If you are a company providing products and services you need to know the boundaries of the doctrine so that you can be careful not to engage in activity that could be viewed as inducing infringement by others.  And if you are an owner of intellectual property, you should know your rights vis-à-vis parties who may not themselves be directly infringing on your intellectual property, but who nevertheless may be causing others to infringe. 

The active inducement doctrine has application in both patent and copyright law, and opinions in each of these areas borrow from one another.  In the highly-publicized MGM v. Grokster matter, for example, where the Supreme Court found that the peer-to-peer file sharing site Grokster was actively inducing copyright infringement, the Court relied upon cases from patent law. 

Global-Tech is the most recent chapter in the active inducement story.  In an 8-1 ruling, with Justice Kennedy dissenting, the Court ruled that, (a) "induced infringement under § 271(b) requires knowledge that the induced acts constitute patent infringement," (b) "willful blindness" is sufficient to establish "knowledge" for active inducement, and (c) the facts in the Global-Tech record were sufficient to affirm the judgment below under this standard (i.e. to find that the alleged inducer had willfully blinded itself to a likelihood that the accused product would infringe a US patent).  For there to be willful blindness, "(1) the defendant must subjectively believe that there is a high probability that a fact exists, and (2) the defendant must take deliberate actions to avoid learning of that fact."  Willful blindness "surpasses recklessness and negligence."  As requested by Google, Microsoft and other amici, the Court ruled that "deliberate indifference to a known risk," the scienter standard applied by the Federal Circuit, was too low a standard. 

The facts in Global-Tech were that a foreign manufacturer of deep-fryers had copied a French deep fryer design and obtained a freedom to operate (a.k.a. a "right to use") study from a U.S. patent attorney.  The foreign manufacturer, when instructing the patent attorney, omitted that the deep-fryer was a copy.  (Remarkably, the client who didn't tell his patent attorney that the product was copied was "Mr. Sham.")  The heart of the Court's conclusion is here:

Also revealing is Pentalpha's decision to copy an overseas model of SEB's fryer. Pentalpha knew that the product it was designing was for the U.S. market, and Sham-himself a named inventor on numerous U.S. patents-was well aware that products made for overseas markets usually do not bear U.S. patent markings. Even more telling is Sham's decision not to inform the attorney from whom Pentalpha sought a right-to-use opinion that the product to be evaluated was simply a knockoff of SEB's deep fryer. On the facts of this case, we cannot fathom what motive Sham could have had for withholding this information other than to manufacture a claim of plausible deniability in the event that his company was later accused of patent infringement. Nor does Sham's testimony on this subject provide any reason to doubt that inference. Asked whether the attorney would have fared better had he known of SEB's design, Sham was non responsive. All he could say was that a patent search is not an "easy job" and that is why he hired attorneys to perform them.

Justice Kennedy was the lone dissenter, writing that because the statute uses the word "knowledge" it is improper to extend its reach to "willful blindness," and that in any event the record below was unclear on the question of whether the willful blindness standard was satisfied, so a remand was necessary.

Global-Tech lessened the "purposeful, culpable expression and conduct" standard for knowledge of infringement set forth in Grokster but applied a higher scienter standard than that applied by the Federal Circuit.  Commentators see this willful blindness standard for knowledge being imported not just into the realm of copyright law, but also possibly more broadly into the criminal law context.

Firm Highlights

Publication

IP Law up for Best Supporting Role in the COVID-19 Relief Spending Bill and Other New Legislation

The new, more than 5,000-page spending bill (formally known as The Consolidated Appropriations Act), which includes the latest COVID-19 relief, had a few surprises under its cover. Two of those surprises focus directly on...

Read More
News

Farella Braun + Martel Ranked Among “Best Law Firms” by U.S. News & World Report and Best Lawyers

SAN FRANCISCO, November 5, 2020: Farella Braun + Martel earned national and regional rankings across a number of practice areas in the U.S. News & World Report and Best Lawyers® release of the “Best...

Read More
Publication

COVID-19 IP Lessons: Consider the Big Picture

In any crisis, there are always those that look to take advantage of the situation.  The coronavirus pandemic is no different. Here, we have highlighted a few of the most egregious fortune hunters, attempting...

Read More
Publication

Tips For Banks As USAA Check Deposit Patent Dispute Grows

In January 2020, we wrote a  Law360 guest article  that highlighted some of the risks that followed Wells Fargo Bank NA's strategy in its patent dispute with the United Services Automobile Association over remote deposit check imaging technology. Nearly...

Read More
News

Farella Braun Files Amicus Brief in Support of Humanitarian Organizations in Ninth Circuit Appeal of WhatsApp v. NSO

SAN FRANCISCO, December 23, 2020: Northern California legal powerhouse Farella Braun + Martel today submitted an amicus brief in support of civil society organizations in the NSO Group v. WhatsApp appeal pending before the...

Read More
Publication

Data Center Business Deals Gone Bad, and the Risks of the “Known in the Industry” Defense

Exploring business partnerships often involves or even requires sharing highly confidential and even trade secret information. The data center industry is no exception, and its participants have in recent years faced litigation focused around...

Read More
Publication

Cannabis IP: Using Intellectual Property to Protect Your Assets and Grow Your Business

Nate Garhart and Ashley Roybal-Reid discuss "Cannabis IP: Using Intellectual Property to Protect Your Assets and Grow Your Business." Intellectual property (IP) is a critical issue in the cannabis industry. Creating and protecting cannabis products...

Read More
Publication

Insights Into the First Patent Trial in Waco, Texas - MV3 Partners v. Roku

A 7-person jury in Waco, Texas, recently returned its verdict in the first patent trial held before Judge Albright: defense verdict, no finding of infringement. In the MV3 Partners v. Roku dispute, MV3 Partners...

Read More
News

Farella Braun + Martel Elevates Five to Partner

Read More
News

3 Things To Know After Busy WDTX Patent Judge's 1st Trial

Eugene Mar spoke to Law360 about the  MV3 Partners LLC v. Roku Inc.  case in the article, " 3 Things To Know After Busy WDTX Patent Judge's 1st Trial." In the article, Eugene said he's...

Read More