Global-Tech Appliances, Inc. v. SEB S.A.

Global-Tech Appliances, Inc. v. SEB S.A.
Global-Tech Appliances, Inc. v. SEB S.A.
	Fed. Cir. 2010); cert. granted, 562 U.S. 960 (2010).
Court membership
	Chief Justice John Roberts Associate Justices Antonin Scalia · Anthony Kennedy; Clarence Thomas · Ruth Bader Ginsburg; Stephen Breyer · Samuel Alito; Sonia Sotomayor · Elena Kagan
Case opinions
Majority	Alito, joined by Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, Kagan
Dissent	Kennedy
Laws applied
	35 U.S.C. § 271(b)

Global-Tech Appliances, Inc. v. SEB S.A., 563 U.S. 754 (2011), is a

willful blindness.^[1]

Justice Anthony Kennedy filed a dissenting opinion.^[3]

Background

In the late 1980s, respondent

T-Fal brand. With no similar products in the American market, the fryer became a commercial success. In 1997, Sunbeam Products asked Pentalpha Enterprises, Ltd., a Hong Kong maker of home appliances and wholly owned subsidiary of Global-Tech Appliances, Inc., to design a deep fryer meeting certain specifications that could be sold under the Sunbeam label. To fulfill the request, Pentalpha purchased an SEB fryer in Hong Kong which lacked the U.S. patent notices and copied all but its cosmetic features. Pentalpha then retained an attorney to conduct a right-to-use study for the United States, but neglected to inform the attorney that the design was copied from an SEB fryer. Failing to discover SEB's patent, the attorney issued an opinion letter in August, 1997, stating that Pentalpha's product did not infringe upon any U.S. patents that he had found. That same month, Pentalpha began manufacturing and selling its fryer to Sunbeam, which sold them in the United States.^[1]

Sunbeam's fryer, which cost less to manufacture than SEB's, allowed Sunbeam to sell the same invention at a lower cost. Once purchasers of cool-touch deep fryers began selecting Sunbeam's product, SEB sued Sunbeam in March, 1998, alleging patent infringement. Sunbeam notified Pentalpha of the lawsuit the next month, but Pentalpha, undeterred, went on to sell the fryers to

Montgomery Ward & Co., which each resold the fryers in the United States under their respective labels.^[1]

SEB accepted a settlement with Sunbeam and proceeded to sue Pentalpha under two theories. First, SEB claimed that Pentalpha had directly infringed upon its patent in violation of 35 U.S.C. §271(a).[4] Second, SEB claimed that Pentalpha had induced Sunbeam, Fingerhut, and Montgomery Ward to infringe upon the patent, contravening §271(b).^[2] The jury found for SEB on both claims and additionally that Pentalpha had willfully infringed upon SEB's patent, awarding SEB $4.65 million. Pentalpha filed post-trial motions on a number of grounds with the District Court for the Southern District of New York. The District Court granted them in part, reducing the jury award to $2.65 million.

Pentalpha appealed to the

writ of certiorari to the Federal Circuit with the Supreme Court on June 23, 2010.^[1] The case was argued before the Supreme Court on February 22, 2011, with former Texas Solicitor General Ted Cruz appearing for the French société anonyme.^[6]

Opinion of the Court

In an 8–1 decision delivered by Justice Alito, in which

Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan joined, the court held:^[1]

Induced infringement under §271(b) requires knowledge that the induced acts constitute patent infringement.

Deliberate indifference to a known risk that a patent exists does not satisfy the knowledge required by §271(b). Nevertheless, the Federal Circuit's judgment must be affirmed because the evidence in this case was plainly sufficient to support a finding of Pentalpha's knowledge under the doctrine of willful blindness.