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

Background

A French appliance maker (SEB S.A.) invented a “cool-touch” deep fryer, obtained a U.S. patent in 1991, and sold the fryer in the United States under its T-Fal brand. A Hong Kong manufacturer (Pentalpha), working for a U.S. competitor (Sunbeam), copied SEB’s fryer from a model bought overseas that lacked U.S. patent markings. Pentalpha hired an attorney for a right-to-use opinion but did not disclose it had copied SEB’s design. Pentalpha then sold the fryers to Sunbeam and other U.S. retailers, and SEB sued for direct and induced patent infringement. A jury found infringement and willfulness.

Reasoning

The Court examined whether someone who “actively induces” another to infringe must actually know of the patent. Looking to earlier law and the 1952 statute, the Court concluded that inducement under § 271(b) requires knowledge that the induced acts amount to patent infringement. The Court rejected a standard of mere “deliberate indifference” and held that the doctrine of willful blindness — deliberately avoiding clear proof of a patent’s existence when one believes there is a high probability of it — counts as the necessary knowledge. Applying that rule to the trial record, the Court found sufficient evidence that Pentalpha willfully blinded itself and affirmed the judgment.

Real world impact

Companies that encourage others to sell products copied from foreign models risk inducement liability if they knew or deliberately avoided learning that a U.S. patent likely existed. The ruling ties knowledge requirements for inducement to similar rules for selling patent components and gives patent owners a stronger basis to sue. The Court affirmed the Federal Circuit’s judgment.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Kennedy agreed that knowledge is required but dissented on allowing willful blindness to substitute for actual knowledge and urged further review by the Court of Appeals.