直 Japanese PDF Font
  • 弁護士等
  • 業務内容
  • 論文等
  • オフィス
  • 事務所概要
  • 採用情報
Finnegan
  • Articles & Books
    • Ad Law Buzz Blog
    • At the PTAB Blog
    • European IP Blog
    • CAFC控訴審関連ブログ
    • INCONTESTABLE® Blog
    • 出願関連ブログ
  • Events & Webinars
  • 知財最新ニュース
  • ポッドキャスト
    • AI + Finnegan
    • AI + Copyright
    • AI + Patent
    • AI + Privacy
    • AI + Trade Secrets
    • AI + Trademark
  • Unified Patent Court (UPC) Hub

A Summary of the Supreme Court’s Global-Tech Appliances, Inc. v. SEB S.A. Decision

May 31, 2011

By Erika Harmon Arner

The Supreme Court today issued its decision in Global-Tech Appliances, Inc. v. SEB S.A., holding that liability for induced patent infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b) requires knowledge that the induced acts constitute patent infringement. At issue was the level of knowledge required to be liable for induced infringement. The Court found that in the absence of actual knowledge of a patent, the standard applied by the Federal Circuit—"deliberate indifference to a known risk that a patent exists"—did not satisfy the requirements of the patent statute. Instead, the Court reasoned, under the well-established doctrine of "willful blindness," a defendant can be liable as if he has actual knowledge, if he subjectively believes there is a high probability that a patent exists and takes deliberate actions to avoid learning of the patent.

Based on the facts before it, the Court decided that the evidence supported a finding of willful blindness. The defendant copied its technology from a product bought overseas, albeit without patent markings, and, importantly to the Court, failed to inform an attorney drafting an infringement opinion that the product was a knockoff of a product on the market. Though the attorney did not discover the patent-in-suit and cleared the defendant's product for sale, the Court concluded that the defendant's only possible motive was to maintain plausible deniability if later accused of patent infringement. Taken together there was thus sufficient evidence that the defendant believed the copied product was patented and took deliberate steps to avoid learning of that fact.

Global-Tech Appliances, Inc. v. SEB S.A. Supreme Court Decision, 5.31.2011

 

Related Practices

控訴審、争点、及び法的戦略

連邦巡回控訴裁判所および最高裁判所

Related Industries

消費財・サービス

消費財

Related Professionals

Erika Harmon Arner
Partner
Washington, DC
+1 571 203 2754
Email

Copyright © Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP. This article is for informational purposes, is not intended to constitute legal advice, and may be considered advertising under applicable state laws. This article is only the opinion of the authors and is not attributable to Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP, or the firm's clients.

Related Insights

Conference

2026 EDTX Bench Bar Conference

October 28-30, 2026

Fort Worth

Conference

Georgia Life Sciences Summit 2026

August 25-26, 2026

Sandy Springs

Lecture

IPIC/McGill Summer IP Course 2026: Understanding Trademarks

July 14, 2026

Montreal

Conference

7th International Conference on Biofuels and Bioenergy

June 25-26, 2026

Edinburgh

Charitable

Bridges From School to Work Gala 2026

June 22, 2026

Washington, DC

Charitable

Banding Together 2026

June 18, 2026

Washington, DC

Lecture

Munich Licensing Summer Course 2026

June 18-19, 2026

Munich

Conference

IPBC Global 2026

June 15-17, 2026

San Diego

Conference

2026 Copyright Society Annual Meeting

June 14-16, 2026

Louisville

Due to international data regulations, we’ve updated our privacy policy. Click here to read our privacy policy in full.

  • プライバシー
  • 免責事項
  • Legal Notices
  • Fraud Alert
  • EEO Statement
  • Cookies
  • Contact Us

© 2026 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP