On December 5, 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court granted
certiorari in Commil USA v. Cisco
Systems, Inc., No. 13-896. See
Order. The arguments will be limited to one issue in the petition:
Whether the Federal Circuit erred in holding that a defendant’s belief that a patent is invalid is a defense to induced infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b).
This appeal stems from a 2-1 opinion at the Federal Circuit.
The trial court ruled that Cisco was liable for active inducing its customers
to infringe Commil’s patent. A split Federal Circuit panel reversed,
because Cisco had a good faith belief that the patent was invalid. The majority
reasoned that an invalid patent cannot be infringed, so a belief that a patent
is invalid precludes the required intent to cause infringement required under § 271(b). Commil argues in the appeal (and the
dissenting Federal Circuit judge agreed) that a determination of invalidity may
dispose of liability, but infringement is “an entirely separate question
capable of determination without regard to its validity[.] ” Medtronic,
Inc. v. Cardiac Pacemakers, Inc., 721 F.2d 1563 (Fed. Cir. 1983). Thus, the intent to
infringe required under §271(b) can exists independent of the validity issue.
No comments:
Post a Comment