Editor's Note :

Editor's Note :

In previous years, the Court released orders the morning after the Court’s “Long Conference.” It has not done so this year. Beginning last Term, the Court consistently considered petitions at least two times before granting certiorari. To the extent that practice continues -- and there is no affirmative evidence the Court intends to drop it -- so we are again doubtful that certiorari will be granted in any cases today.

Global-Tech Appliances, Inc. v. SEB S.A.

Docket No. Op. Below Argument Opinion Vote Author Term
10-6 Federal Cir. Feb 23, 2011
Tr.Aud.
May 31, 2011 8-1 Alito OT 2010

Holding: (1) Induced infringement under 35 U.S.C. §#271(b) requires knowledge that the induced acts constitute patent infringement; and (2) deliberate indifference to a known risk that a patent exists does not satisfy the knowledge required by Section 271(b).

Plain English Holding: To prove that a defendant caused another company to violate a patent, the plaintiff must show that the defendant knew that the company’s activities would violate the patent. It is not enough to show that the defendant knew that there was a chance that the activities could violate the patent but paid no attention to the risk.

Judgment: Affirmed, 8-1, in an opinion by Justice Alito on May 31, 2011. Justice Kennedy filed a dissenting opinion.

SCOTUSblog Coverage

Briefs and Documents

Merits briefs

Amicus briefs

Certiorari-stage documents

 
Share:
Term Snapshot
Awards