直 Japanese PDF Font
  • 我们的专业人员
  • 服务
  • 我们的见解
  • 办公室
  • 事务所
  • 人才招聘
Finnegan
  • Articles & Books
    • Ad Law Buzz Blog
    • At the PTAB Blog
    • European IP Blog
    • 联邦巡回法院知识产权博客
    • INCONTESTABLE® Blog
    • Prosecution First博客
  • Events & Webinars
  • 知识产权讯息
  • 播客
    • 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

上诉、争议和法律策略

联邦巡回法院和最高法院上诉

Related Industries

消费品和服务业

消费品

Related Professionals

Erika Harmon Arner
合伙人
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

2027 ABA-IPL Section Annual Meeting – IPLSPRING

April 14-15, 2027

Arlington

Conference

Patent Litigation Europe 2027

January 18-20, 2027

Amsterdam

Reception

2026 IPO Education Foundation Awards Dinner

December 15, 2026

Washington, DC

Conference

IP Life Sciences Forum 2026

December 13-15, 2026

Coral Gables

Panel Discussion

2026 Advanced Patent Law Institute

December 3-4, 2026

Stanford

Webinar

Data and Market Exclusivity: An Update on China’s New Law and Comparisons to the US and Europe

November 19, 2026

Webinar

Conference

IPBC Asia 2026

November 17-19, 2026

Tokyo

Conference

NAPABA Convention 2026

November 12-14, 2026

Los Angeles

Conference

IAM Live: Trade Secret Strategy USA

November 10, 2026

San Jose

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

  • 隐私
  • 免责申明
  • Legal Notices
  • Fraud Alert
  • EEO Statement
  • Cookies
  • Contact Us

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