## Facts

- Commil USA, LLC owned U.S. Patent No. 6,430,395 covering a method for short-range wireless networking in multi-access-point Wi‑Fi systems.
- Commil sued Cisco Systems, Inc. for direct infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a) and induced infringement under § 271(b), alleging Cisco sold networking equipment used by customers in an infringing manner.
- In the first jury trial, the jury found the patent valid and Cisco liable for direct infringement, but found no induced infringement; the district court granted a new trial on inducement and damages due to improper closing argument.
- Before the second trial, the USPTO confirmed the patent’s validity in reexamination.
- In the second trial (limited to inducement and damages), Cisco sought to introduce evidence and obtain a jury instruction that its good-faith belief in the patent’s invalidity negated the intent required for inducement; the district court excluded the evidence and refused the instruction.
- The second jury found Cisco liable for induced infringement and awarded approximately $63.8 million in damages.
- The Federal Circuit held that evidence of a good-faith belief of invalidity could negate inducement intent and vacated in part.
- The Supreme Court granted certiorari to decide whether a good-faith belief in invalidity is a defense to induced infringement.

## Issues

1. Whether induced infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b) requires knowledge that the induced acts constitute infringement.
2. Whether a defendant’s good-faith belief that a patent is invalid is a defense to induced infringement by negating the requisite intent.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court vacated the Federal Circuit’s contrary ruling and remanded.
- The Court reaffirmed that induced infringement requires proof the defendant knew the induced acts constitute infringement.
- The Court held that a good-faith belief that a patent is invalid is not a defense to induced infringement under § 271(b) and does not negate the statute’s scienter requirement.

## Legal Principles

- Infringement and validity are distinct questions in the Patent Act; § 271 addresses infringement, while validity is governed by separate provisions.
- The scienter element for inducement concerns knowledge of infringement, not beliefs about validity.
- Issued patents are presumed valid under 35 U.S.C. § 282(a) and may be overcome only by clear and convincing evidence; allowing “belief in invalidity” to defeat inducement would weaken this framework.
- A successful invalidity defense eliminates infringement liability because an invalid patent cannot be infringed, but invalidity must be proved through proper adjudication rather than treated as a subjective state-of-mind defense to intent.
- Accused inducers may challenge validity through established mechanisms (e.g., declaratory judgment actions and USPTO procedures), not by substituting a belief-based defense for an invalidity ruling.

## Conclusion

The Court held that induced infringement under § 271(b) requires knowledge that the induced acts are infringing, and that a defendant cannot avoid inducement liability by showing a good-faith belief that the patent is invalid; validity must be contested and proved as a separate issue.


Commil USA, LLC v. Cisco Sys., Inc., 575 U.S. 632 (2015)