## Facts

- SEB S.A. owned a U.S. patent covering a “cool-touch” deep fryer design and sold the product in the United States.
- Sunbeam asked Pentalpha Enterprises, Ltd. (a Global-Tech subsidiary) to supply deep fryers meeting certain specifications.
- Pentalpha purchased an SEB fryer abroad that lacked U.S. patent markings, copied the fryer’s functional design (excluding cosmetic features), and sought a U.S. attorney’s “right-to-use” opinion.
- Pentalpha did not disclose to counsel that it had copied SEB’s fryer; counsel failed to locate SEB’s patent and opined that Pentalpha’s fryer did not infringe patents he found.
- Pentalpha sold fryers to Sunbeam and other companies, which resold them in the United States under their own trademarks at prices competing with SEB.
- After SEB sued Sunbeam for infringement (and Sunbeam notified Pentalpha), Pentalpha continued selling to other U.S. resellers.
- SEB later sued Pentalpha and related parties, alleging active inducement of infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b).

## Issues

1. Whether liability for active inducement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b) requires knowledge that the induced acts constitute patent infringement.
2. Whether “deliberate indifference” to the risk of a patent’s existence suffices, or whether a higher mental state is required.
3. Whether willful blindness can satisfy any knowledge requirement under § 271(b), and if so, whether the evidence supported liability.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment for SEB.
- The Court held that induced infringement under § 271(b) requires knowledge that the induced acts constitute patent infringement, including knowledge of the patent.
- The Court rejected “deliberate indifference to a known risk that a patent exists” as the governing standard for § 271(b).
- The Court adopted willful blindness as a substitute for actual knowledge and held the record supported a finding that Pentalpha was willfully blind to SEB’s patent.

## Legal Principles

- Induced infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b) requires proof that the defendant knew the induced acts constituted patent infringement.
- Knowledge for § 271(b) is consistent with the knowledge requirement recognized for contributory infringement, including knowledge of the patent and of infringement.
- Willful blindness can satisfy the knowledge requirement where:
  - the defendant subjectively believes there is a high probability that a fact exists, and
  - the defendant takes deliberate actions to avoid learning that fact.
- Willful blindness is distinct from recklessness or negligence and requires purposeful avoidance of confirming a high probability of wrongdoing.

## Conclusion

The Court required knowledge for induced patent infringement under § 271(b) but permitted plaintiffs to prove that knowledge through willful blindness; applying that rule, the Court upheld liability where the defendant copied a competing product and took deliberate steps to avoid learning of the relevant patent.


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