Supreme Court Holds Willful Blindness Satisfies Knowledge Requirement of Induced Patent Infringement Statute

摘要

In Global-Tech Appliances, Inc. v. SEB S.A. [No. 10-6 (US Sup. Ct. 05/31/2011)], the respondent SEB invented an innovative deep fryer, obtained a US patent for its design, and began selling its fryer in the United States. Subsequently, Sunbeam Products, Inc., asked petitioner Pentalpha Enterprises, Ltd., a Hong Kong home appliance maker and wholly owned subsidiary of petitioner Global-Tech Appliances, Inc., to supply Sunbeam with deep fryers meeting certain specifications. Pentalpha purchased an SEB fryer that was made for sale in a foreign market and thus lacked US patent markings, copied all but the fryers cosmetic features, and retained an attorney to conduct a right-to-use study without telling him that it had copied directly from SEB's design. Failing to locate SEB's patent, the attorney issued an opinion letter stating that Pentalpha's deep fryer did not infringe any of the patents that he had found. Pentalpha then started selling its fryers to Sunbeam, which resold them in this country under its own trademarks at a price that undercut SEB's. SEB then sued Sunbeam for patent infringement.Though Sunbeam notified Pentalpha of the lawsuit, Pentalpha went on to sell its fryers to other companies, which resold them in the US market under their respective trademarks. After set-ding the Sunbeam lawsuit, SEB sued Pentalpha, asserting that it had contravened 35 U.S.C. § 271 (b) by actively inducing Sunbeam and the other purchasers of Pentalpha fryers to sell or offer to sell them in violation of SEB's patent rights.