直 Japanese PDF Font
  • Our Professionals
  • Our Work
  • Our Insights
  • Offices
  • Firm
  • Careers
Finnegan
  • Articles & Books
    • Ad Law Buzz Blog
    • At the PTAB Blog
    • European IP Blog
    • Federal Circuit IP Blog
    • INCONTESTABLE® Blog
    • Prosecution First Blog
  • Events & Webinars
  • IP Updates
  • Podcasts
    • 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

Appeals, Issues, and Legal Strategy

Federal Circuit and Supreme Court Appeals

Related Industries

消費品與服務

Consumer Products

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

IAM Live: Navigating the UPC 2026

November 3, 2026

Paris

Conference

4th Global Patent Litigation FORUM

October 29, 2026

Munich

Conference

2026 AIPLA Annual Meeting

October 29-31, 2026

Washington, DC

Conference

2026 EDTX Bench Bar Conference

October 28-30, 2026

Fort Worth

Conference

ChIPs Global Summit 2026

October 21-23, 2026

Los Angeles

Seminar

Future IP UK

October 21, 2026

London

Hybrid Conference

Intellectual Property Law Institute 2026 – California

October 19-20, 2026

San Francisco

Conference

31st Annual UMass Chan Research Retreat

October 14-15, 2026

Worcester

Hybrid Conference

Intellectual Property Law Institute 2026 – New York

September 28-29, 2026

New York

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

  • Privacy
  • Disclaimer
  • Legal Notices
  • Fraud Alert
  • EEO Statement
  • Cookies
  • Contact Us

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