Global-Tech Appliances, Inc. v. SEB S.A.
|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
Feb 23, 2011
|May 31, 2011||8-1||Alito||OT 2010|
Holding: (1) Induced infringement under 35 U.S.C. Â§#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 companyâ€™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.
- Commentary: Bad facts swing pendulum to rare Federal Circuit affirmance
- Argument recap: Court sympathetic to Federal Circuit standard on induced infringement
- Argument preview: Court to consider standard for secondary patent liability
- Court to rule on child interviews
Briefs and Documents
- Brief for Petitioner Global-Tech Appliances, Inc.
- Brief for Respondent SEB S.A.
- Reply Brief for Petitioner Global-Tech Appliances, Inc.
- Brief for NewEgg, Inc., in Support of Petitioner
- Brief for the Software Freedom Law Center in Support of Petitioner
- Brief for the Clearinghouse Association and Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association in Support of Petitioner
- Brief for the Business Software Alliance in Support of Petitioner
- Brief for Google, Inc., in Support of Petitioner
- Brief for 41 Law, Economics, and Business Professors in Support of Petitioner
- Brief for the Comcast Corporation, Facebook, Inc., Intuit Inc., Microsoft Corporation, Netflix, Inc., Overstock.Com, Inc., and SAP America, Inc. in Support of Petitioner
- Brief for the Yahoo! Inc., Ebay Inc., Electronic Arts Inc., General Motors LLC, Hewlett Packard Company, McAfee, Inc., Red Hat, Inc., and Symantec Corporation in Support of Petitioner
- Brief for Cisco Systems, Inc., Dell, Inc., and Intel Corporation in Support of Reversal
- Brief for the Federal Circuit Bar Association in Support of Neither Party
- Brief for the Intellectual Property Owners Association in Support of Neither Party
- Brief for Law Professors in Support of Respondent
- Brief for the William Mitchell College of Law Intellectual Property Institute in Support of Respondent
- Brief for the American Intellectual Property Law Association in Support of Respondent
- Brief for Hoffman-La Roche, Inc. Caterpillar, Inc., General Electric Company, Johnson and Johnson, Lutron Electronics Co., Inc., 3M Company, and the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America in Support of Respondent