Editor's Note :

close editor's note Editor's Note :

1) We’ve prepared a survey about SCOTUSblog that will take you at most five minutes to fill out and that will help us improve the blog for you. We would really appreciate it if you would participate by clicking here.
2) This week we are hosting an online symposium on The American Legion v. American Humanist Association, a dispute over the constitutionality of a cross that sits on a traffic median in Maryland. Contributions, as well as Amy Howe’s introduction to the case, are available at this link.

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