Global-Tech Appliances, Inc. v. SEB S. A.
131 S. Ct. 2060
| SCOTUS | 2011Background
- SEB S. A. owned a U.S. patent on its innovative cool-touch deep fryer design and marketed it in the United States under the T-Fal brand.
- Pentalpha, a Hong Kong manufacturer and subsidiary of Global-Tech, copied SEB’s fryer overseas and supplied fryers to Sunbeam for U.S. sale.
- An attorney initially concluded Pentalpha’s fryer did not infringe, after a right-to-use search that did not reveal SEB’s patent.
- Sunbeam sold Pentalpha’s fryers in the U.S.; Pentalpha later sold to Fingerhut and Montgomery Ward, who resold in the United States.
- SEB sued Sunbeam for direct and induced infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a) and § 271(b) after losing customers to Sunbeam.
- The district court and Federal Circuit affirmed a verdict finding willful infringement and induced infringement based on willful blindness.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 271(b) requires knowledge of the patent | SEB argues knowledge or awareness of the patent is required. | Pentalpha contends actual knowledge of the patent is required, not merely risk awareness. | Induced infringement under § 271(b) requires knowledge that the induced acts infringe. |
| Whether willful blindness can satisfy the knowledge requirement | Willful blindness can establish knowledge for § 271(b). | Willful blindness should not substitute for actual knowledge under the statute. | Willful blindness can supply knowledge for induced infringement under § 271(b). |
Key Cases Cited
- Aro Mfg. Co. v. Convertible Top Replacement Co., 377 U.S. 476 (1964) (codified contributory infringement principles; knowledge of infringement tied to liability)
- Henry v. A. B. Dick Co., 224 U.S. 1 (1912) (knowledge of infringing use by direct infringer required intent to assist)
- Thomson-Houston Elec. Co. v. Ohio Brass Co., 80 F.712 (6th Cir. 1897) (early contributory infringement discussion on intent)
- Grokster, Ltd. v. MGM, 545 U.S. 913 (2005) (inducement liability premised on purposeful, culpable conduct; willful blindness discussed)
- United States v. Jewell, 532 F.2d 697 (9th Cir. 1976) (willful blindness concept discussed in relation to knowledge)